Courts have cataloged trump administration legal losses in litigation over the Alien Enemies Act, where a federal judge issued temporary restraining orders and multiple appeals and mandamus petitions followed.
At the district level Chief Judge James Boasberg entered oral and written temporary restraining orders, then required the government to explain aircraft departures and custody transfers after those orders.
The government moved to vacate the orders and invoked the state secrets privilege to resist disclosure, prompting Judge Boasberg to order show cause filings and to express skepticism about the privilege claim.
The Supreme Court later vacated the district court's temporary restraining orders, stating that affected individuals must receive notice in a manner that allows habeas review in the proper venue before removal occurs.
Judge Boasberg then found probable cause to believe officials violated his orders and offered the government a way to purge contempt by asserting custody so detainees could pursue habeas relief, a finding that the government immediately appealed.
The judge certified a class of noncitizens removed to a foreign detention facility and granted summary judgment in the plaintiffs' favor, directing the government to propose measures that would provide hearings or facilitate return or habeas review.
Appellate Actions And Wider Case Developments
At the appellate level the D.C. Circuit issued administrative stays, vacated one preliminary injunction as moot after intervening events, and issued writs of mandamus terminating criminal contempt proceedings, with split panels and dissenting opinions recorded.
The record later included sworn declarations and witness orders, among them a declaration by Secretary Kristi Noem describing her decision to continue transfers, and a declaration from Emil Bove about privileged legal advice.
Judge Boasberg ordered testimony from a whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, and from Drew Ensign at the Department of Justice, though some of those orders were administratively stayed by the court of appeals.
The case remained active on appeal with government filings seeking stays and mandamus relief, and the district court required the administration to facilitate returns or parole at ports of entry for class members who sought to come back.
Broader reporting by The New York Times places this litigation in a larger context of challenges against the administration, noting more than seven hundred fifty lawsuits in total, with several hundred allowed to remain in effect and more than one hundred fifty halted by court orders as reported by the newspaper.
