The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has denied President Donald Trump’s request to halt a lower court order blocking his proclamation that applied the Alien Enemies Act to support deportations of suspected members of a Venezuelan gang.
Judges Karen Henderson and Patricia Millett opposed the administration’s request while Judge Justin Walker dissented, stating that the lower court’s order threatened to harm the executive branch’s negotiations with foreign powers.
The decision came after a hearing on March 26 in which Millett and Walker asked questions indicating skepticism and support for the administration’s position.
Millett, meanwhile, praised the district court’s handling of the case and said “there is neither jurisdiction nor reason for this court to interfere at this very preliminary stage or to allow the government to singlehandedly moot the Plaintiffs’ claims by immediately removing them beyond the reach of their lawyers or the court.”
Millett seemed to worry about the consequences of granting the administration’s requests, suggesting that the administration had “easily thrown aside” the Constitution’s demand of due process.
Walker’s dissent stated that “the government has ... shown that the district court’s orders threaten irreparable harm to delicate negotiations with foreign powers on matters concerning national security.”
“It enjoins the president’s exercise of his war and foreign affairs powers under the Alien Enemies Act and does so in a manner that purports to direct operations outside the United States’ borders and in a manner that could intrude upon sensitive diplomatic negotiations,” Ensign said.
He also said that the appropriate legal avenue for the plaintiffs was through a petition for habeas corpus, a point that faced some pushback from Millett.
“Lifting the injunctions risks exiling plaintiffs to a land that is not their country of origin,” she said.
Henderson also suggested the administration took too broad a view of executive authority. “At the outset, the government’s suggestion that judicial review of the Alien Enemies Act is categorically foreclosed is incorrect,” she said.
In its emergency motion, the administration said “the alleged Presidential actions at issue here, if taken, would not be subject to review and would be lawful.”
It warned that “if [Boasberg’s order] were allowed to stand, district courts would have license to enjoin virtually any urgent national-security action just upon receipt of a complaint.”
Filed earlier this month, the lawsuit was brought by five plaintiffs who said they faced removal under Trump’s proclamation, including some who said they either weren’t part of Tren de Aragua or were victimized by the group.
The administration said during oral argument it had not removed the five plaintiffs. It has, however, removed others as part of flights that took place the same day as a hearing in which Boasberg blocked the implementation of Trump’s proclamation.
Earlier this month, Boasberg granted class certification, meaning that the lawsuit encompassed not only the five plaintiffs but “all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025, presidential proclamation.”
Walker’s dissent agreed with the administration that the proper legal avenue for the plaintiffs to challenge the government’s actions was through a petition for habeas corpus. That being the case, the plaintiffs had brought their claims in the wrong court, he said.
“Habeas claims must be brought where the petitioner is confined, and the Plaintiffs are not confined in the District of Columbia,” Walker wrote.
During oral argument, he similarly told Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the plaintiffs, that “the strangest place of all to file would be in Washington, D.C., where there’s likely not a single person detained under the [Alien Enemies Act].”
Gelernt responded: “People are being moved from every part of the country. So we actually don’t know whether people were originally in D.C.”
Walker’s comments came after Trump’s criticisms of nationwide injunctions and accusations that attorneys were engaging in a practice known as “judge shopping,” or seeking to file with judges who were more likely to grant them sweeping injunctions.
Millett disagreed that the plaintiffs had to seek a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas “is the proper vehicle for challenges to the legality of custodial detention,” she said, adding emphasis.
Millett’s concurrence also defended the plaintiffs’ use of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and filing in Washington. “It is the judicial district where defendants—agencies and officers of the United States—reside,” she said.
