Category
The Alien Enemies Act
The 1798 wartime statute, dormant for eighty years, was invoked in March 2025 against Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua. The litigation that followed is now the most consequential habeas docket in the country.
J.G.G. v. Trump: Constructive Custody, Contempt, and the Return of the CECOT Class
Chief Judge Boasberg held that the United States retains “constructive custody” over migrants delivered to El Salvador’s CECOT prison at U.S. direction and ordered the government to either return them or provide them with the due process they were denied. The opinion is the most ambitious habeas remedy yet attempted against an extraterritorial removal.
W.M.M./A.A.R.P. v. Trump: The Fifth Circuit Defines “Invasion”
A two-to-one Fifth Circuit panel rejected the AEA proclamation, defining “invasion” as the entry of an organized military force directed by a foreign nation. The full court voted to rehear en banc and vacated the injunction; oral argument was held January 22, 2026, and the en banc court’s decision remains pending.
A.A.R.P. v. Trump: A 1:00 a.m. Injunction and the Constitutional Floor of Notice
Twenty-four hours' notice in English of imminent removal under the Alien Enemies Act is constitutionally inadequate. The Supreme Court said so in a per curiam decision that began with a 1:00 a.m. emergency injunction and ended with a strong rebuke of the Fifth Circuit and the Northern District of Texas.
A.S.R. v. Trump: The Outlier — A District Court Endorses the AEA Proclamation
Judge Stephanie Haines became the first federal judge in the country to uphold the March 2025 invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. Even her opinion required twenty-one days' notice before removal — a tacit concession that even where the proclamation stands, summary deportation does not.
G.F.F. v. Trump: A Manhattan District Court Says the AEA Means What It Says
Judge Alvin Hellerstein granted a preliminary injunction and certified a class in S.D.N.Y., holding the AEA proclamation “exceeded the scope” of the statute. The opinion is notable for its forensic attention to the inadequate process the named plaintiffs had received about why they had been designated as enemies at all.
D.B.U. v. Trump: Twenty-One Days' Notice in the Detainee’s Language
Judge Charlotte Sweeney granted a preliminary injunction and certified a District of Colorado class, holding the AEA proclamation likely unlawful and requiring twenty-one days' notice in the detainee’s language before any AEA removal. The Tenth Circuit denied the government’s emergency stay.
J.A.V. v. Trump: A Trump-Appointed Judge Reads the Word “Invasion”
The first federal judge to rule on the merits of the March 2025 AEA proclamation was a Trump appointee, and he ruled against the government. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr.'s opinion in <em>J.A.V.</em> reads the word “invasion” the way the Founders did — and concludes that Tren de Aragua is not one.
Noem v. Abrego Garcia: “Facilitate” the Return
A unanimous per curiam confirmed that when the United States removes a person to a foreign prison in admitted violation of an existing court order, the district court may require the government to “facilitate” that person’s return. The opinion supplied the doctrinal foundation for the constructive-custody theory that has reshaped the AEA docket.
Trump v. J.G.G.: The Supreme Court Routes the Alien Enemies Act Through Habeas
A 5–4 per curiam vacated Chief Judge Boasberg’s D.D.C. TRO and held that challenges to removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act must be brought as habeas petitions in the district of confinement. The decision was a procedural defeat for the petitioners and a substantive defeat for the government.