SCOTUS Rules Non-Citizens Must Challenge Removal Under Alien Enemies Act

In Trump v. J.G.G., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens challenging their removal under the Alien Enemies Act must bring habeas petitions in the district where they are detained. The justices did not address whether the Alien Enemies Act actually allows their deportation.

Facts of the Case

The case challenges detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. On March 15, 2025, President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U.S.C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” 

Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a provisionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to the Supreme Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. The Court agreed to consider the case on an emergency basis.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the TROs. In an unsigned four-page opinion, a narrow 5-4 majority held that challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought in habeas. In support, the Court cited the statute largely precludes judicial review. “Regardless

of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas,” the Court wrote.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court went on to find that the plaintiffs and others similarly detained under the AEA are entitled to “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.” The Court specifically held that AEA detainees must receive notice that they are subject to removal under the Act, and such notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissent, which was joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.“The implications of the Government’s position,” Sotomayor argued, “is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.”

What’s Next?

If the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denies relief to the potential deportees, one will likely seek Supreme Court review of that decision. At that point, the justices will have to address whether President Trump’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act is legal.