A Trump administration proclamation invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act against alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang. Three aliens who were detained under the proclamation in Texas attempted to challenge the policy in federal court.
After the men were deported under regular immigration law, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case as moot—leaving key questions about the proclamation’s legality unanswered. One judge argues they should have answered those questions.
Background
In March 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation that Venezuelan citizens in the U.S. are immediately removable “alien enemies” if they are members of Tren de Aragua and “not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents.” The proclamation invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
Notably, the proclamation added that the secretary of homeland security “retains discretion to apprehend and remove any Alien Enemy under any separate authority.”
Tren de Aragua (TdA) began as a Venezuelan prison gang and has since become Venezuela’s “most powerful criminal enterprise.” It is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.
Shortly after the proclamation was issued, three Venezuelan nationals—alleged to be TdA members—were detained in Anson, Texas.
The detainees filed a federal lawsuit against the president and other officials and entities, claiming that the proclamation violates the AEA and due process. They also sought to certify all noncitizens within the Northern District of Texas who may be subject to the proclamation, hoping to move forward with the lawsuit as a formal class action.
On April 17, 2025—the day after the suit was filed—the district court denied their petition for a temporary restraining order against their removal under the AEA. The aliens then appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, also seeking an administrative stay and injunction. That same day, they filed petitions for a variety of relief directly with the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to prevent their deportation while the appeal was pending.
The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court ordered the government “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees.” It would eventually also rule that the Fifth Circuit was incorrect to dismiss the case, vacating that dismissal and remanding the case to that court.
Fifth Circuit Ruling
Specifically, the Supreme Court asked the Fifth Circuit to address two questions: (1) whether the three aliens’ claims that the president violated the AEA warrant a preliminary injunction; and (2) whether the president’s proclamation violates due process as to a putative class.
The Fifth Circuit panel initially granted preliminary injunctive relief to the entire putative class. It also concluded that the government’s notice procedure satisfied due process. In accordance with the government’s request, the Fifth Circuit granted en banc review—meaning before the full court.
During oral arguments before the en banc court, neither party knew the exact immigration status of any of the three aliens. It was later discovered that all three petitioners had been removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act—not the AEA.
This meant the en banc court had no need to answer the Supreme Court’s questions, as the case was now moot. It therefore dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The petitioners asked the court to substitute five new class representatives in place of the three who were deported, but the case was never certified as a class action. This meant those five individuals were never officially a part of the case.
“Given the lack of any named petitioners to whom we could grant relief in this appeal, and given that this case has never and does not now feature any class, we conclude that the appeal is moot,” reads the opinion.
Judge James Ho wrote a concurring opinion, arguing that while he agrees the case is now moot, the court should have addressed the “merits question directed to it by the Supreme Court—and affirm the President’s actions under the Alien Enemies Act and the Due Process Clause.”
At this time, no such opinion has been issued—leaving the question unanswered in the Fifth Circuit.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: scorecardtips@protonmail.com.
