Supreme Court Blocks Emergency Deportations

Date: May 16, 2025

Signed by: Per Curiam (unsigned opinion of the Court)

Executive Summary

This Supreme Court decision responds to an emergency application filed by two Venezuelan nationals and a putative class of detainees who face imminent removal under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The removal is based on their alleged affiliation with Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization. The Court intervened to temporarily block these removals, citing concerns about due process and the need to maintain judicial jurisdiction. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of the detainees’ appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the detainees are entitled to constitutionally adequate notice before being removed.

Key Provisions

• Presidential Invocation of Alien Enemies Act (Intro Paragraph)

• President Trump issued a proclamation ordering the removal of Venezuelan nationals associated with Tren de Aragua under the Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. §21).
• Two detainees and a putative class sought to block immediate removals, arguing they were given no chance to challenge their classification or removal (pg. 1, para. 1).

• District Court and Appellate History (Section I)

• The District Court denied a temporary restraining order (TRO) on April 17, 2025. The detainees received removal notices shortly afterward.
• Detainees requested emergency intervention from both the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court.
• The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal, stating detainees gave the court “only 42 minutes to act.” The Supreme Court then issued an injunction at 11:52 p.m. CT on April 18 to halt removals (pg. 2-3, paras. 1-2).
• The Supreme found, based on the Noem case, had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief (pg. 2, para 1).

• Supreme Court Grants Certiorari and Injunction (Section I)

• Detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18, and they granted temporary injunctive relief while the question of what notice is due is determined (pg. 4, para. 2).
• The Court concluded that the Fifth Circuit wrongly dismissed the detainees’ appeal and that the District Court’s inaction for over 14 hours constituted a denial of relief (pg. 3, para. 3).

• Due Process Requirements for Notice (Section II)

• The Court reaffirmed that non-citizens facing removal must receive timely and meaningful notice allowing them to contest the removal.
• Notice given just 24 hours in advance without sufficient detail or access to legal counsel is deemed inadequate (pg. 4, para. 2).

• Limits of Ruling (Section II & III)

• The Court emphasized it was not ruling on the legality of the removals under the AEA, only on the adequacy of notice and the need to preserve judicial review.
• The government remains free to pursue removals under other legal authorities (pg. 5, para. 2).

• Remand Instructions (Final Section)

• The Fifth Circuit must consider:
1. Whether the detainees are likely to succeed in their habeas claims challenging AEA-based removals.
2. What process and notice are required under due process before removal.
• The injunction remains in place until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case on the merits (pg. 8, para. 2).

Source:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf