4
A.A.R.P. v. TRUMP
ALITO, J., dissenting
with 24 hours to respond, and was poised to rule ex-
peditiously. See ECF Doc. 41, at 3-4. But the Dis-
trict Court dissolved the Government’s obligation to
respond after counsel for applicants filed their hasty
appeal which, in the District Court’s view, deprived
it of jurisdiction to rule. Id., at 4-5.
• The papers before us, while alleging that the appli-
cants were in imminent danger of removal, provided
little concrete support for that allegation. Members
of this Court have repeatedly insisted that an All
Writs Act injunction pending appeal may only be
granted when, among other things, “the legal rights
at issue are indisputably clear and, even then, spar-
ingly and only in the most critical and exigent cir-
cumstances.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church
v. Newsom, 590 U. S.
(2020) (ROBERTS, C. J.,
concurring in denial of application for injunctive re-
lief) (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted) (quoting S. Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E.
Hartnett, D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Court Practice
§17.4, p. 17-9 (11th ed. 2019)); see also Hobby Lobby
Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 568 U. S. 1401, 1403 (2012)
(SOTOMAYOR, J., in chambers); Lux v. Rodrigues,
561 U. S. 1306, 1307 (2010) (ROBERTS, C. J., in
chambers).
-“
• Although this Court did not hear directly from the
Government regarding any planned deportations
under the Alien Enemies Act in this matter, an at-
torney representing the Government in a different
matter, J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-766 (DC), in-
formed the District Court in that case during a hear-
ing yesterday evening that no such deportations
were then planned to occur either yesterday, April
18, or today, April 19.
•
Although the Court provided class-wide relief, the
