This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The District Court denied the detainees' motion for a temporary restraining order on April 17, 2025.
The Government argued that no putative class members would be removed on April 18 and that removal the next day would be consistent with its due‑process obligations, reserving the right to act.
Justice Alito dissented, saying the theory rests on a mischaracterization of what happened in the District Court.
Background and question before the Court
On April 17, 2025, the District Court denied the detainees' motion for a temporary restraining order.
According to Government, the Government told the Court that it would not remove any putative class members on April 18 and that removal the next day would be consistent with due‑process obligations, while reserving the right to act.
What each side argues
Government
The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed on April 18 and argued that removal the next day would be consistent with its due‑process obligations, reserving the right to take such action.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 605us1r31_7k47.pdfopinion
Guide generated October 1, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.