I wrote a short post about A.A.R.P. v. Trump. Here, I will walk through the complex procedural posture of this case. I will do my best to lay out it clearly, and offer commentary at the end.
In the wake of J.G.G. v. Trump, district courts in Texas have asserted jurisdiction over alleged gang members who are slated for removal to El Salvador. Some of these aliens are currently being held in Abilene, Texas. Judge James Wesley Hendrix keeps his chambers in Lubbock, but draws cases from the Abilene Division of the Northern District of Texas.
On April 16, 2025 the ACLU filed suit on behalf of A.A.R.P and W.M. in the Abilene Division. They sought an ex parte TRO, alleging that the federal government planned to imminently remove the aliens. The government filed a reply later that day. On April 17, 2025, Judge Hendrix denied the TRO on the grounds that the removal was not imminent. That evening, counsel for the ACLU left a voicemail with the court about the case. Later that evening, the court ruled that any emergency relief must be sought on the docket. On April 18, at 12:34 a.m., the ACLU sought a second emergency TRO. Under a prior order, the government had twenty-four hours to respond. The Court noted the case "raised a series of complicated questions" and "believed that 24 hours was an appropriate time" to respond. Moreover, Friday was (for those who may not have known) Good Friday, and many people simply were not available to work that day. (We will see if the ACLU brings an Establishment Clause claim against the judge for citing a religious holiday to justify a delay.) Judge Hendrix said he would rule by Saturday, April 19. But he would never be given the chance to rule.
