I. Die angefochtenen Beschlüsse
1. Der erste District Court-Beschluß von Samstag, den 15.03.2025
„The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs‘ Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Given the exigent circumstances that it has been made aware of this morning, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set. As Plaintiffs have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief, the Court accordingly ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs‘ 3 Motion for TRO is GRANTED; 2) Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court; and 3) The parties shall appear for a Zoom hearing on March 17, 2025, at 4:00 p.m.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#minute-entry-419394056; Hyperlinks + Hv. hinzugefügt)
2. Der zweite District Court-Beschluß von Samstag, den 15.03.2025
„As discussed in today’s hearing, the Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs‘ 4 Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED insofar as a class consisting of „All noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025, Presidential Proclamation entitled ‚Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua‘ and its implementation“ is provisionally certified; 2) The Government is ENJOINED from removing members of such class (not otherwise subject to removal) pursuant to the Proclamation for 14 days or until further Order of the Court; 3) The Government shall file any Motion to Vacate this TRO by March 17, 2025, with Plaintiffs‘ Opposition due by March 19, 2025; and 4) The hearing set for March 17, 2025, is VACATED and RESET for March 21, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. via Zoom.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#minute-entry-419399699; Hyperlink hinzugefügt)
II. Die Regierungs-Anträge, die beiden Beschlüsse außer Vollzug zu setzen
1. Antrag in Bezug auf den ersten Beschluß
Emergency Motion [2105928] [Entered: 03/15/2025 03:05 PM] (18 Seiten) – https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844.01208720416.0_1.pdf
2. Der Antrag in Bezug auf den zweiten Beschluß
Emergency Motion [2105940][Entered: 03/16/2025 01:07 AM] (25 Seiten + 2 Seiten Anlage) – http://blogs.taz.de/theorie-praxis/files/2025/03/2_Appeal_wg_Alien_Enemies_Act.pdf (via https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs1/01208720435?caseId=41845 via https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69742417/jgg-v-donald-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-1208720435)
„The Presidential actions at issue here are not subject to judicial review, as this Court has squarely held. Citizens Protective League v. Clark, 155 F.2d 290, 294 (D.C. Cir. 1946). Accordingly, there was no lawful basis for the district court to enjoin the implementation of that action. And even if reviewable, the President’s action is lawful and based upon a long history of using war authorities against organizations connected to foreign states“.
(Hyperlink hinzugefügt)
III. Antwort der Plaintiffs (Antragsteller/Kläger) auf beide Anträge
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844.01208721185.0_2.pdf (37 Seiten)
„No case law, under the AEA or otherwise, suggests that these statutory and constitutional claims are wholly unreviewable under the narrow political question doctrine. Indeed, the World War II case on which the government relies heavily, Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), makes clear that these types of threshold statutory claims are reviewable. The claim Ludecke declined to review was whether, where Congress and the President agreed the war was not yet over, the Court should declare otherwise. Here, by contrast, the President is trying to write Congress’s limits out of the act. On the merits, the invocation of the Act against a gang cannot be squared with the explicit terms of the statute requiring a declared war or invasion by foreign government.“
(Hyperlink hinzugefügt)
IV. Rückantwort der Regierung
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844.01208721711.0.pdf (21 Seiten)
„Even if a court could review the Proclamation, it expressly makes the two findings that the AEA require: (1) Tren de Aragua (TdA) is both linked to the Venezuelan government and operates as a government unto itself in parts of Venezuelan territory, and that (2) it has engaged in an ‚invasion‘ or ‚predatory incursion‘ into our country. There is no basis for a court to look behind those factual determinations.“
V. Mündliche Verhandlung
Der Appeals Court sieht anscheinend wenig Anlaß, sofort einzugreifen (vgl. https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/1902481041836618116: „No ruling yet on the stay demand.“):
„PER CURIAM ORDER [2106633] filed scheduling oral argument on Monday, 03/24/2025 at 1:30 p.m., allocating oral argument time as follows: Appellants – 30 Minutes, Appellees – 30 Minutes“.
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69742127/jgg-v-donald-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-1208721745)
VI. Die in den Einleitungen genannten Supreme Court-Entscheidungen
Die Supreme Court-Entscheidung
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009) gibt es dort:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep556/usrep556418/usrep556418.pdf
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948) dort:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep335/usrep335160/usrep335160.pdf;
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 425, 435 (2004) dort:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep542/usrep542426/usrep542426.pdf
Nachtrag:
Die Schriftsätze für das parallele District Court-Verfahren gibt es dort:
Antrag an den District Court, seine die Entscheidungen vom 17.02.2025 aufzuheben, und Erwiderung der Kläger/Antragsteller auf den Antrag
In der Nacht von Mittwoch zu Donnerstag ging die Erwiderung ein. Mündliche Verhandlung am Freitag.
https://blogs.taz.de/theorie-praxis/antrag-an-den-district-court-seine-die-entscheidungen-vom-17-02-2025-aufzuheben-und-erwiderung-der-klaeger-antragsteller-auf-den-antrag/ (Artikel von Donnerstag, den 20.03.2025.
