Summary
This Supreme Court dissenting opinion by Justice Alito criticizes the Court's decision to grant an unprecedented emergency injunction halting the removal of a putative class of noncitizen detainees under the Alien Enemies Act. The dissent argues that the Court lacked clear jurisdiction, failed to allow the government time to respond, and bypassed established procedural requirements for seeking emergency relief. It further questions the factual basis for the alleged imminent danger and notes that the lower courts had not yet ruled on the matter.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant emergency relief under the All Writs Act.
- Whether the petitioners complied with the requirement to seek emergency relief in the district court before appealing.
- Whether class certification is permissible in a habeas corpus proceeding.
- Whether the factual basis justified an emergency injunction.
Key quotations
“The Court did all this even though: It is not clear that the Court had jurisdiction. The All Writs Act does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction.” (at 1)
Factual background
The petitioners, a putative class of noncitizen detainees in the Northern District of Texas, sought certification of a class and an emergency injunction to halt removal under a March 2025 Presidential Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The Government had not responded to the petitioners' allegations, and the district court did not issue a TRO before the petitioners appealed.
Procedural history
District Court failed to rule on a TRO request; Fifth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction; Supreme Court issued an emergency injunction under the All Writs Act.