AARP et al. v Trump (US Supreme Court, No. 24A1007) (Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Emergency Application for and Emergency Injunction)

Excerpt:  “The sole focus of Applicants’ application to this Court was the government’s failure to provide sufficient notice before seeking to remove individuals under the Alien Enemies Act (‘AEA’), as required by this Court’s ruling less than three weeks ago. The government opposition sidesteps the sufficiency of its notices entirely. In its April 7 ruling, the Court unanimously held that ‘AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.’ Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025) (emphasis added). Yet, on April 17, within hours of the district court’s order denying the initial Temporary Restraining Order (‘TRO’) application and reserving ruling on class certification based on the government’s representation that it would not remove the two named Applicants while the litigation is pending, the government took actions contrary to this Court’s specific ruling in J.G.G. Instead of providing timely notice that would allow putative class members to seek habeas relief prior to removal, the government gave detainees an English-only form, not provided to any attorney, which nowhere mentions the right to contest the designation or removal, much less explain how detainees could do so. App. 64–65. And officers told detainees they would be removed within 24 hours—in many cases, even less than 24 hours. App. 56–60. Under no plausible understanding of this Court’s ruling is that notice protocol satisfactory.”