Reported / Citable
Background
Three Venezuelan nationals detained in Texas filed a habeas petition for themselves and a proposed class, challenging President Donald Trump’s March 2025 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act against certain Venezuelan citizens alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua. They contended that the proclamation exceeded the Act and that summary removal would violate due process.
After emergency proceedings, the Supreme Court remanded the case and directed the Fifth Circuit to consider the preliminary-injunction factors for the named petitioners’ statutory claims and the notice required for the proposed class’s due-process claims. A Fifth Circuit panel granted preliminary relief, and the court then granted rehearing en banc. Following en banc argument, the parties reported that the government had removed all three named petitioners under the Immigration and Nationality Act, rather than the Alien Enemies Act. No class had been certified.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it had become moot. Since all three named petitioners had already been removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an injunction against removal under the Alien Enemies Act could no longer provide them any effectual relief.
The court declined to substitute five proposed class representatives on appeal. Because no class had ever been certified, the proposed class lacked a legal status independent of the named petitioners’ now-moot claims. The denial was without prejudice to future district-court consideration of class certification, substitution or addition of representatives, or amendment of the petition. The court did not decide whether the presidential proclamation complied with the Alien Enemies Act or due process.
Key Takeaways
- Removal of all named petitioners under separate immigration authority mooted their request to enjoin removal under the Alien Enemies Act.
- An uncertified proposed class did not preserve a live controversy after the named petitioners’ claims became moot.
- The Fifth Circuit left any future class certification, substitution, or amendment for the district court and did not resolve the merits of the Alien Enemies Act or due-process challenges.
Why It Matters
The ruling resolves this appeal on jurisdictional grounds without establishing circuit precedent on the validity of the President’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation or the adequacy of notice afforded to affected detainees. It also underscores the procedural vulnerability of putative class litigation when named representatives’ claims become moot before certification.
Although Judges Ho and Oldham separately favored addressing or relying on the merits, those views did not constitute the court’s holding. Further litigation may proceed only if the district court permits appropriate new representatives, an amended petition, or class certification and a live controversy otherwise exists.