Whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had proper venue to issue injunctions preventing the removal of Venezuelan nationals under Presidential Proclamation No. 10903. Specifically, the Court addressed whether challenges to removals authorized by the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) must be brought via habeas corpus petitions in the district of confinement. The Court also considered what due process protections are required before such individuals are removed from the United States.

• Sought vacatur of temporary restraining orders (TROs) that prevented the removal of certain Venezuelan nationals designated as alien enemies.
• Argued that challenges to removals under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought through habeas corpus proceedings rather than equitable relief in a district court.
• Contended that venue for such challenges is limited to the district where the detainees are confined, which in this case is Texas, not the District of Columbia.
• Agreed that members of Tren de Aragua subject to removal under the AEA are entitled to judicial review.

• Sought injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent their removal from the United States under Presidential Proclamation No. 10903.
• Challenged the Government's interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act and asserted that they do not fall within the category of removable "alien enemies."
• Argued that summary removal without an individualized hearing violates the Constitution and various statutes.
• Sought equitable relief to prevent their transfer to foreign prisons, specifically in El Salvador.

• The Court granted the application to vacate the TROs, treating them as appealable injunctions under *Carson v. American Brands, Inc.*.
• It held that challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. § 4067, 50 U.S.C. § 21, must be brought in habeas corpus proceedings because the statute largely "preclude[s] judicial review" per *Ludecke v. Watkins*.
• The Court reasoned that since these claims "necessarily imply the invalidity" of confinement and removal, they fall within the "core" of the writ of habeas corpus, citing *Nance v. Ward* and *Heck v. Humphrey*.
• Applying *Rumsfeld v. Padilla*, the Court determined that jurisdiction for "core habeas petitions" lies exclusively in the district of confinement.
• Because the respondents are confined in Texas, the Court concluded that venue was improper in the District of Columbia.
• Regarding due process, the Court noted that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in removal proceedings under *Reno v. Flores*.
• Invoking *Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.*, the Court held that detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard "appropriate to the nature of the case."
• Specifically, the Court required that AEA detainees receive notice within a reasonable time and in a manner allowing them to seek habeas relief in the proper venue before removal occurs.