A.R.P. v. Trump
| Part of a series on the |
| Immigration policy of the second Trump administration |
|---|
A.R.P. v. Trump (originally filed as A.A.R.P. v. Trump and then known as W.M.M. v. Trump) is a pending appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc. The case involves the United States President Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act via a presidential proclamation that directed the deportation of Venezuelan migrants whom the government asserts are members of the gang Tren de Aragua. After Trump invoked the Act, a United States district court enjoined its implementation, leading the United States Supreme Court to hold in Trump v. J.G.G. that people being detained under the presidential proclamation have the right to challenge their designation as a matter of due process, but directed that such claims must be brought by writs of habeas corpus.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the case in the Northern District of Texas on April 16, 2025, as a putative habeas class action on behalf of detained Venezuelan immigrants who allegedly qualify for deportation under the proclamation. On April 18, the ACLU sought an emergency temporary restraining order to prevent the alleged imminent removal of detainees from a detention facility in Anson, Texas, and their deportation to the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. It then filed appeals with the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court. At around 1:00 a.m. on April 19, 2025, in a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court directed the United States government not to remove any of the purported class members until further order of the court. In a May 16 per curiam decision, the Supreme Court granted an injunction and returned the case to the Fifth Circuit, directing it to determine whether the president's proclamation was proper and what notice is needed to protect the detainees' due process rights. The Fifth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction on September 2, ruling that Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful. However, this ruling was vacated four weeks later, when the Fifth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc.