Venue disputes—specifically, between courts in Washington DC and those in the Fifth Circuit—are again on the horizon as a result of challenges to aggressive use of immigration-related laws by the Trump Administration.
In yesterday’s case of J.G.G. v. Trump, the D.C. Circuit denied an emergency motion to stay TROs against the use of the Alien Enemies Act to detain and remove Venezuelan citizens. No. 25-5067 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2026). While the operative judgment of the panel comprises only a one-page order, each of the three judges wrote an opinion (two concurrences and one dissent), as follows:
- Judge Karen Henderson noted that the Act grants the President near-blanket authority to detain and deport noncitizens affiliated with a belligerent state during times of war or invasion. However, she underscored the necessity of judicial oversight, stating, “The Alien Enemies Act sets forth ‘conditions upon which it might be invoked’ but is silent as to ‘how long the power should last when properly invoked.'”
- Judge Patricia Millett argued that the government’s position, which would allow for the summary removal of individuals without any opportunity for judicial review, was fundamentally at odds with the Constitution’s guarantee of due process.
- Judge Justin Walker’s dissent contended that the plaintiffs’ claims should have been brought in the Southern District of Texas, where they were detained, rather than in the District of Columbia. He also argued that the district court’s orders interfered with sensitive national security operations.