On March 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will consider whether to stay a temporary restraining order issued on March 15, which currently prevents the summary removal of individuals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal organization, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This case has garnered attention due to the Trump Administration's actions following the issuance of the order, which included alleged noncompliance with a directive from Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to halt removals.

The Alien Enemies Act has historically been invoked during declared wars, but the Trump Administration's proclamation claims an 'invasion' by Tren de Aragua, allowing for the apprehension and removal of individuals deemed to be members of the gang. The proclamation asserts that Tren de Aragua has unlawfully infiltrated the U.S. and is involved in 'irregular warfare,' linking it to the Venezuelan government led by Nicolás Maduro.

The legal proceedings began when the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on behalf of Venezuelan detainees who were allegedly moved to a detention center in Texas in anticipation of removal. Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the removal of these individuals, allowing time for legal review.

The Trump Administration has appealed this order, arguing that it represents an unprecedented intrusion on executive power. The plaintiffs contend that the government's actions violate several federal laws and seek to ensure due process protections are upheld in immigration proceedings. The case raises significant questions about the interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act and the extent of executive authority in immigration enforcement, particularly in the absence of a declared war.

The appellate court's decision will address jurisdictional issues, including whether the temporary restraining order is appealable and the reviewability of the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. The outcome may have implications for the treatment of noncitizens and the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary in matters of immigration and national security.