J.G.G. v. Donald Trump

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · March 26, 2025 · No. 25-5067

Summary

This per curiam order from the D.C. Circuit denies the government's emergency motion for a stay of temporary restraining orders issued by the district court. The court addresses its appellate jurisdiction over the non-final TROs, finding it established due to the risk of irretrievable harm to international negotiations and the extraordinary nature of enjoining the President. The accompanying opinions extensively analyze the political question doctrine, statutory jurisdiction, and the scope of judicial review under the Alien Enemies Act regarding the President's authority to detain and deport certain noncitizens.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Henderson; Millett; Walker
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decision date
March 26, 2025
Docket number
25-5067
Procedural posture
Appeal from the District of Columbia District Court's temporary restraining orders and class certification
Standard of review
abuse of discretion
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States v. J.G.G., et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate jurisdictionstandard of reviewdue processimmigrationadministrative procedure act

Practice areas

immigrationadministrative lawconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to issue a TRO enjoining the President under the Alien Enemies Act.
  2. Whether a TRO is appealable as an interlocutory order for stay purposes.
  3. Whether the Alien Enemies Act permits removal without notice and due process.
  4. Whether the term “invasion” in the Alien Enemies Act includes criminal gang activity.
  5. Whether the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its stay request.

Holdings

  1. The district court possessed jurisdiction to issue the TRO, and an injunction against the President is permissible only when it does not direct the President to perform official duties.
  2. A TRO is not appealable as a stay because it is not a preliminary injunction and does not meet the statutory exception for interlocutory orders.
  3. The Alien Enemies Act does not waive constitutional due‑process requirements; removal must be accompanied by notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Key quotations

Equity “has no jurisdiction . . . to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.” Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475, 501 (1867). (at *12)
A TRO is generally not appealable; only preliminary injunctions fall within the statutory exception for interlocutory appeals. Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 953 (D.C. Cir. 1978). (at *6-7)

Factual background

In March 2025 President Trump issued a proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. Five Venezuelan plaintiffs filed a class action and obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting their removal for fourteen days. The government appealed the TROs seeking a stay.

Procedural history

The district court entered an ex parte TRO preventing the government from removing the plaintiffs under a Presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The government appealed and sought a stay of the TROs. The D.C. Circuit considered the emergency stay motions and denied them.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…