Background: The District Court’s Initial Ruling

On April 22nd, the District Court for the District of Colorado issued a temporary order mandating specific protections for a class of detainees. This order stipulated that:

The U.S. government cannot move the petitioners and members of the provisionally certified class outside the District of Colorado. Furthermore, the government must provide a twenty-one (21) day notice to these individuals before any intended removal, informing them of their right to seek judicial review and consult with legal counsel. This notice must be provided in a language the individual understands.

District Court for the District of Colorado, April 22, 2025

This initial ruling aimed to ensure due process and prevent the immediate deportation of individuals potentially protected under the AEA.

Appeal Court Rejects Government’s Request for a Stay

Following the District Court’s decision, the Trump administration sought a stay of the ruling, effectively requesting permission to proceed with removals while appealing the decision. After an initial rejection by the district Court, the government took its appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.However, the Appeals Court also denied the emergency motion for a stay.

The emergency motion for a stay is denied.

10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 2025

This denial represents a significant hurdle for the government’s efforts to expedite removals under the AEA.

Grounds for Denial: Irreparable Harm and Supreme Court Precedent

The Appeals Court’s decision hinged on the government’s failure to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted. The court emphasized that merely showing “some possibility of irreparable injury” is insufficient. The government needed to prove that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.

Furthermore,the court considered a recent Supreme Court decision,A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1034 (2025), which, while technically applying to a specific case in North Texas, carries significant weight for all AEA cases. The Appeals Court noted that, given this Supreme Court ruling and the fact that all members of the class are in federal custody, there is no realistic possibility that the government could remove any member of the class from this country before final expiration of the TRO on May 6, 2025.

It is indeed not enough to show ‘some possibility of irreparable injury.’ The party seeking a stay must show that it ‘is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.’ The government has not made such a showing in this case. All members of the class are in federal custody. And given the important unresolved issues under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court that no one in that proceeding be removed under the AEA until further order of that Court, there is no realistic possibility that the government could remove any member of the class from this country before final expiration of the TRO on May 6, 2025.

10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 2025, referencing A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1034 (2025)

Looking Ahead: Preliminary Injunction and Broader Implications

The temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the District Court is set to expire on May 6th. Before this date, the district Court is expected to rule on the next stage of provisional legal protection, a preliminary injunction. This decision will determine whether the protections for detainees will be extended beyond the initial TRO period.

The composition of the Appeals Court panel that denied the stay – Judges Hartz, Phillips, and Carson – adds another layer of complexity to the case. Their differing judicial philosophies could influence future decisions related to the AEA and immigration enforcement.

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding immigration policy and the balance between national security concerns and individual rights. The outcome of the preliminary injunction decision will be closely watched by immigration advocates and legal experts alike.