A.A.R.P. v. Trump (Deportation appeal 2025)

On August 13, 2026, the en banc Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. In an opinion by Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, the court explained that after en banc oral argument it learned the government had removed all three named Venezuelan petitioners (W.M.M., F.G.M., and A.R.P.) under the ordinary immigration laws rather than the Alien Enemies Act, and that the Supreme Court had expressly permitted removal under other laws. Because the named petitioners were removed and identified no defect in those removals, their claims, and the putative class they sought to represent, became moot, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The court declined the petitioners' request to substitute five new class representatives on appeal, noting that no class had ever been certified. It therefore did not reach the two questions the Supreme Court had asked it to answer on remand: whether the petitioners' Alien Enemies Act claims warranted a preliminary injunction, and whether the Proclamation violates due process as to the class. Judges Haynes and Oldham concurred in the judgment. Judge Ho and Judge Oldham each wrote separately to argue that the court should have reached the merits and upheld the President's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, contending that courts owe substantial deference to a President's determination that the Nation faces an invasion. Judgment was entered the same day, with each party bearing its own costs.