Mootness dooms challenge to Trump’s Alien Enemies Act deportations

The en banc court found it can no longer grant relief after the three Venezuelan petitioners were removed under regular immigration law rather than the Alien Enemies Act.(CN) — An en banc Fifth Circuit on Thursday dismissed as moot a lawsuit by three Venezuelan nationals challenging President Donald Trump’s use of a 1798 wartime law to detain and remove supposed members of the Tren de Aragua gang, after the government removed all three under regular immigration statutes instead.Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee writing for the en banc court, said the appeal could no longer provide any meaningful relief.“The government has removed all three named petitioners under the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Elrod stated. “So enjoining removal under the AEA would not prevent their removal … the appeal has thus become moot.”The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The case began after Trump’s March 14, 2025, proclamation invoked the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan citizens 14 or older who are members of Tren de Aragua — a designated foreign terrorist organization — and are not naturalized citizens or lawful permanent residents. The law, dating to 1798, allows the president to apprehend, detain and remove “alien enemies” during a declared war or when an “invasion or predatory incursion” is underway or threatened.The three petitioners, identified only by initials, filed a putative class action habeas petition in the Northern District of Texas claiming the proclamation exceeded the statute and violated due process. There, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Donald Trump appointee, denied a temporary restraining order and class certification.After emergency litigation, the Supreme Court vacated an earlier Fifth Circuit dismissal, remanded the case, and directed the appeals court to decide two questions: whether the named petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that the Alien Enemies Act did not authorize their removal, and what notice was due the class before summary removal. The high court barred removals under the Alien Enemies Act while the case continued but explicitly allowed the government to remove people “under other lawful authorities.”A Fifth Circuit panel later granted preliminary injunctive relief. The full court then took the case and at oral arguments in January, judges learned the named petitioners had already been removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Counsel for both sides later confirmed the removals in a joint notice. No class was ever certified.“After oral argument before the en banc court, we learned that the government has removed all three named petitioners under the Immigration and Nationality Act — that is, not the AEA,” Elrod wrote. “This development is unobjectionable: The Supreme Court expressly said that the government could remove the named petitioners and putative class under other laws.”In a separate order published Thursday, the court denied the petitioners’ motion to substitute five new class representatives on appeal. The panel found no class exists since the lower court had previously declined to certify one and the proposed substitutes appear “uniquely situated” because one had an approved asylum application, another held Temporary Protected Status and a third had applied for permanent residency.The en banc court found factual questions about class certification belong in the lower court, not on appeal, and that court is free to revisit class certification or related issues after the Fifth Circuit’s mootness ruling.The 16-judge panel also included U.S. Circuit Judges Edith Jones and Jerry Smith, both Ronald Reagan appointees; Bill Clinton appointee Carl Stewart; George W. Bush appointees Priscilla Richman, Leslie Southwick and Catharina Haynes; Barack Obama appointees James Graves and Stephen Higginson; Donald Trump appointees Don Willett, James Ho, Stuart Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, Andrew Oldham and Cory Wilson; and Joe Biden appointees Dana Douglas and Irma Ramirez.Ho concurred separately but added the court should go ahead and answer the Supreme Court’s questions and dismiss the case.“I’ll begin with a basic principle: Determining the existence of a state of invasion is a quintessentially executive prerogative — not a judicial one,” Ho wrote. “And if courts must defer when the president treats illegal immigration as an invasion, … then we must defer when it comes to the narrower question of an invasion by Tren de Aragua.”The president, as commander in chief, holds broad authority to respond to invasions or threats without waiting for legislative approval, and judges are poorly suited to second-guess national security assessments, Ho said.“Nothing in the AEA indicates that the judiciary should question presidential determinations regarding the war power,” Ho concluded. “To the contrary, the act expressly authorizes its use on a ‘public proclamation’ by the president.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads