Posted on 05/09/2025 5:58:14 PM PDT by CFW
HUGE development in Alien Enemies Act case that SCOTUS entered a stay for an entire class that had not been certified. District judge now denies class certification
This decision is first case where court denied class certification. Additionally, now that the court has denied class certification, it changes status quo of case before SCOTUS.
The district court's order further illustrates problem with what SCOTUS did: SCOTUS an order barring an removal under AEA for plaintiffs that didn't exist because a class had not been certified (or not certified)...there was NO decision.
Under normal circumstances, plaintiffs' attorneys would file a motion for an injunction barring removal of putative class while they appeal denial of class certification & then from there to SCOTUS. But SCOTUS preempted all of this. Will SCOTUS ignore & leave in place?
Or will SCOTUS stand down and leave to 5th Cir. to decide & then resolve a subsequent motion if 5th Cir. denies? This will also expedited decision on certification as that question is separate from AEA removals.
It shouldn't take long for expedited briefing on question of whether a class action can proceed under habeas or All Writs' Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
The court's decision is here:
Here is an overview of the case:
Overview: President Trump issued a presidential proclamation purporting to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to allow for summary removal of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. A class of individuals in US immigration custody seek a writ of habeas corpus to prevent their removal to El Salvador and a declaration that the presidential proclamation is unlawful. The court denied petitioners’ initial request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Apr. 17 and petitioners filed a renewed emergency TRO request on Apr. 18.
Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump signed a Proclamation purporting to invoke the authority of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to summarily deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang.
On Apr. 16, two Venezuelan individuals using the pseudonyms A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. who are in U.S. immigration custody, filed a habeas petition against Respondents-Defendants Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and others.
A.A.R.P and W.M.M. claim to be at imminent risk of removal under the AEA. They ask that the court grant class certification, issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Respondents from transferring Petitioners and similarly situated persons from the district while this suit is ongoing Petitioners argue that the government’s actions exceed its authority They claim the government’s actions violate the Immigration and Naturalization Act which provides a “sole basis” for such removals, provisions for applying for asylum and withholding, and statutory protection against being sent to a country where they could face torture. Furthermore, they claim their removal would violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the right to habeas.
Petitioners also ask the court to declare the President’s Proclamation unlawful, grant a writ of habeas corpus enjoining Respondents from removing Petitioners from the district pursuant to the Proclamation, and prevent Respondents from applying the Proclamation to Respondents without giving 30-days’ advance notice and opportunity to respond. They argue that the Proclamation is unlawful and that the court’s intervention is necessary so that Petitioners and the putative class are
not unlawfully sent to a Salvadoran prison pursuant to the Proclamation.
Court documents and a history of the case can be found here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69898198/aarp-v-trump/
Thank you for the post.
The X post by Margot Cleveland highlights a significant update in a legal case involving the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, where a district judge denied class certification for a group of detainees, reversing a prior expectation that the Supreme Court had paused deportations for this uncertified class on April 7, 2025, as noted in Newsweek.
The case stems from the Trump administration’s attempt to deport alleged Tren de Aragua members (a Venezuelan criminal group) using the 1798 Act, which historically allows the president to detain or deport citizens of enemy nations during wartime, a power the ACLU and judges like Charlotte Sweeney in Denver have challenged as misused for non-wartime immigration enforcement.
This denial of class certification could weaken the detainees’ collective legal standing, potentially allowing individual deportations to proceed despite earlier injunctions, such as the one issued by Judge Sweeney on May 7, 2025, which had indefinitely blocked removals for over 100 people in Aurora, according to Colorado Newsline.
@grok
explain this to me like I’m 5
@grok
·
“Imagine a rule from a long time ago, like 1798, that lets the president send people from certain countries away if they’re seen as dangerous during a war or big problem. President Trump used this rule to send away some Venezuelans he said were in a bad gang. Some courts said, “Wait, that’s not fair!” and stopped it for a bit. The big court said people can be sent away but must ask to stay one by one, not as a group. Now, a judge said they can’t fight as a group, so each person has to ask by themselves. It’s like everyone needing their own ticket to stay, which makes it harder for them.”
############################
So, I think this is good in that TdA cannot defend themselves as a group. I’m not an attorney, so please chime in!
Sounds like The Law is being a total donkey here.
“They gave relief to a Plaintiff class that doesn’t exist.”
Roberts continues to be a total @$$.
I think it boils down to Trump exporting the wrong people. Should have started with judges.
‘The Law’ is stepping way outside it’s bright, clearly marked boundaries. The AEA doesn’t provide for courts to second guess the deportation, at all.
I don't disagree.
“explain this to me like I’m 5”
LOL...I’ll have to remember that!
I keep telling Grok to stop regurgitating previous responses and simplify. But I like that “age 5” trick!
Effing A
Spik Ingresh!
Thanks for that High Capacity Melt Down. Now, it makes sense!
Otherwise, I would not have know Up from Down legalistically speaking.
Take the w.
but normal americans had ‘no standing’ to ask if barry obama was an NBC, or to challenge the rigged 2020 election.
More on these judges:
Of all the judges in the U.S. all five foreign-born judges of the D.C. court managed to get their fingerprints on controversial Trump cases. (Not experience as a judge)
But, that means the Administration has to make the case for removal for each individual gang member? That could take…. Forever.
I’d like to see the court decide that habeas can be a class action. Much like glenshaw glass created the defintion of wages is now income corruption.
"Court refuses to certify Class Action in Alien Enemies Act case"
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
Although the following reference does not mention Illegal Aliens Act concerning Eisenhower's Operation Wetback (slang), it does mention "illegal invasion."
The Bracero Program (1942–1964)
Insights welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.