特朗普诉J.G.G.案

This case arose from the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. On March 15, 2025, five detainees filed a lawsuit challenging their removal. The U.S. District Court for D.C. issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) barring removals under the AEA. The government sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. On April 7, 2025, in a 5-4 per curiam decision, the Supreme Court granted the application, vacating the TROs. The Court held that challenges to AEA removals must be brought via habeas corpus, not equitable relief.

The Supreme Court granted the government's application and vacated the District Court's TROs in a 5-4 decision. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson dissented. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Subsequently, the D.C. District Court found probable cause that the government committed criminal contempt for willfully disregarding the TRO.

The central dispute was whether the District Court's TROs were a proper exercise of judicial authority, or whether the AEA's language precludes judicial review outside of habeas corpus proceedings. Additionally, the government's alleged defiance of the TRO by continuing removals raised questions of executive compliance with judicial orders.

The case intensified debates over executive power in immigration enforcement and the limits of judicial authority. It highlighted tensions between the administration's aggressive deportation policies and due process protections for noncitizens. The Supreme Court's ruling was seen as a victory for the administration, while the contempt proceedings underscored the judiciary's role in checking executive action.