The United States government, led by officials including President Donald J. Trump, has filed a strong opposition brief urging a federal court to deny a preliminary injunction sought by individuals designated as members of the Venezuelan transnational criminal organization Tren de Aragua (TdA).
The filing, submitted on May 1, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, defends the President’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) and argues the court lacks jurisdiction over many of the claims.
The case, J.G.G. et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., challenges the government’s actions under a March 20, 2025 proclamation that designated members of TdA as alien enemies subject to apprehension, restraint, and removal under the AEA.
READ: Florida Senator Moody, Colleagues Introduce ‘Stand With Israel Act’ Targeting UN Funding
The plaintiffs and petitioners in the case are seeking to halt removals and compel the government to facilitate the return of some individuals already transferred to custody in El Salvador.
In the 49-page filing, the government presents several key arguments against the requested preliminary injunction:
Lack of Jurisdiction: The government contends the D.C. court lacks jurisdiction over individuals who have already been removed to El Salvador. They argue the U.S. does not have “constructive custody” over aliens detained by a foreign sovereign nation pursuant to its own laws, even if there are bilateral arrangements or financial support involved. They cite Supreme Court precedent requiring habeas corpus challenges (which they argue these claims are at their core) to be brought in the district of confinement, which is not D.C. for those in El Salvador. The government further argues that claims brought on behalf of individuals currently in U.S. criminal custody are also speculative regarding potential future removal to El Salvador and thus lack jurisdiction in this court.
READ :David Hogg Says He Will ‘Fight’ On For Democrats Even If Ousted From DNC Role
Constitutional Claims Fail: The government asserts it is providing adequate due process to TdA members in the U.S. custody subject to the AEA, including individual notice in a language they understand, opportunity to call counsel, and sufficient time (at least 12-24 hours, often more) to express intent to file and file a habeas petition before removal. They argue this meets or exceeds due process requirements in analogous expedited removal contexts. Regarding claims related to conditions in El Salvadoran prisons, the government states it does not have custody or control over detainees held by a foreign sovereign, and U.S. courts cannot review the detention practices of other countries based on principles of international comity. They also argue claims of illegal detention or punishment after removal, including Eighth Amendment torture claims, are not cognizable against the U.S. under these circumstances and are better suited for other legal avenues like the Convention Against Torture, review for which is limited.
AEA Challenges Are Non-Justiciable: The government argues that the President’s decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act and the determination that its statutory prerequisites are met (e.g., identifying a “predatory incursion” by a “foreign nation or government”) are non-justiciable political questions committed solely to the Executive Branch. Citing over a century of precedent, they state courts lack the authority to review or enjoin the President’s exercise of this power, particularly in matters of foreign affairs and national security. They maintain that the AEA permits only limited judicial review via habeas corpus regarding whether an individual is an alien enemy and the interpretation of the Act’s text, not a review of the underlying factual or policy determinations.
READ: Trump-Appointed Judge Blocks Admin From Using Alien Enemies Act To Deport Gang Members
INA Does Not Supersede AEA: The government rejects the argument that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the sole legal basis for removing aliens and that it overrides the AEA. They contend the AEA and INA are distinct mechanisms for removing aliens, which can coexist. The INA’s exclusivity provisions apply only to determinations of admissibility and deportability under Title 8, not actions taken under the AEA (Title 50). The government also argues there was no implied repeal of the 1798 AEA when the INA was enacted. Furthermore, they assert that under the AEA, individuals charged with hostility or crimes against public safety are not entitled to a period for voluntary departure, and TdA members fall into this category based on their designation. Relief provisions like asylum under the INA are inapplicable to alien enemies under the AEA, particularly those deemed a danger to U.S. security.
Proclamation Prerequisites Met: Even if reviewable, the government argues the President’s proclamation satisfies the AEA’s requirements. They define “invasion” and “predatory incursion” broadly, consistent with historical usage, to include hostile entries and encroachments beyond formal military action, arguing TdA’s criminal activities in the U.S. fit this definition. They also argue TdA can be considered a “foreign nation or government” for AEA purposes due to its deep ties to the Venezuelan government (citing alleged infiltration and coordination with regime-sponsored groups) and its de facto governance in areas of Venezuela.
Equitable Factors Favor Government: Finally, the government argues the balance of equities and the public interest weigh heavily against issuing an injunction. They dispute claims of irreparable harm from removal, reiterating the U.S. policy against removal to countries where torture is likely. Granting an injunction, they argue, would irreparably harm national security and foreign policy interests by impeding the Executive’s ability to remove designated alien enemies who threaten public safety and potentially compromise sensitive international negotiations with countries like El Salvador regarding detentions. The public interest, they assert, is best served by denying relief that would keep alleged terrorists in the United States.
The government’s filing asks the court to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that Petitioners have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or that the equitable factors support their request. The case remains ongoing in the D.C. District Court.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
