Left: James Ho is sworn in during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on nominations on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2017 (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster). Right: President Donald Trump smiles as he speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, May 20, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Thursday threw up its hands in a case about the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport certain immigrants.
In a 22-page order, the en banc court said the case of W.M.M. v. Trump was effectively over because the government ultimately relied upon a secondary form of authority to deport the petitioners.
"[W]e learned that the government has removed all three named petitioners under the Immigration and Nationality Act—that is, not the AEA," the order reads. "This development is unobjectionable: The Supreme Court expressly said that the government could remove the named petitioners and putative class under other laws. And petitioners point out no infirmities in their removal."
The case itself has quite a lengthy pedigree.
Depending on the court system, the case has been variously known as A.A.R.P. v. Trump and W.M.M. v. Trump due to class certification issues — and, in limited form, went before the nation's high court.
In a per curiam ruling issued in May 2025, the justices rebuked the Trump administration for potentially subjecting the Venezuelan petitioners to "indefinite detention" in a Salvadoran terrorist prison with only roughly one day of notice. The court further slammed the federal government for issuing such notice "devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal" and said that state of affairs "surely does not pass muster."
In continuing to bar deportations in the district, the justices, in a 7-2 per curiam ruling, sent the matter back to the 5th Circuit.
Then, the case went back and forth through the court system.
Now, the Supreme Court wants the appeals court to rule on the applicability of the AEA. But because the W.M.M. group of petitioners is no longer in the country, having been deported using the typical deportation statute, the court has declined to address the AEA issues.
"The Supreme Court remanded this case to us when the three named petitioners were still in the country," the order goes on. "But we have since learned that the government has removed them. Given this change, we conclude that the appeal is moot."
The 5th Circuit goes on to explain the jurisdictional dead end the changed circumstances have created for any AEA ruling.
"The government has removed all three named petitioners under the INA, so enjoining removal under the AEA would not prevent their removal," the order continues. "And AEA removal of the three named petitioners now cannot occur, irrespective of any preliminary injunction in this case."
Attorneys for the petitioners, however, argued the case could go on if the court were to substitute other immigrants into the case — which is, at heart, an argument in favor of class-action status.
But the last time the case went back to the district court in Texas, formal class status was explicitly denied to the petitioners.
"We decline to do so for the reasons that the separate order on that motion expresses," the order goes on. "While an exception to the mootness doctrine exists for properly certified class actions, no class exists or ever has existed in this case."
The court notes that the matter of the class action could be resolved in the immigrants' favor at a future date — but says that is simply not the matter before the appeals court at present.
"Given the lack of any named petitioners to whom we could grant relief in this appeal, and given that this case has never and does not now feature any class, we conclude that the appeal is moot," the order concludes. "We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction."
In a concurrence, U.S. Circuit Judge James C. Ho wrote to say he would have answered the questions — in the executive branch's favor.
"As I've explained, foreign governments have used illegal immigration as a weapon to invade and weaken other countries, as Administrations of both parties have warned for decades," the concurrence reads. "As I've also noted, judges are supposed to defer to a President's declaration of a state of invasion—including the ones issued on January 20, 2025."
Ho, for his part, has repeatedly opined in favor of President Donald Trump's authority to use the AEA as an anti-immigrant tool — even going so far as to rebuke the Supreme Court itself.
"And if courts must defer when the President treats illegal immigration as an invasion, then a fortiori we must defer when it comes to the narrower question of an invasion by Tren de Aragua," the concurrence continues. "So I would answer the Court's questions and affirm Proclamation 10903 and the President's actions under the Alien Enemies Act and the Due Process Clause. That would not just 'terminate the litigation now.' It would also terminate future AEA cases, such as those involving the putative class members."
Comments