Whether the Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review a district court's failure to rule on an emergency temporary restraining order for detainees facing imminent removal under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Whether notice provided roughly 24 hours before removal, without instructions on exercising due process rights, satisfies the Fifth Amendment requirements for AEA detainees. Whether a court may grant temporary injunctive relief to a putative class of detainees to preserve jurisdiction before formal class certification occurs.

• Sought emergency injunctive relief against summary removal under the AEA.
• Argued that notice provided roughly 24 hours before removal was constitutionally inadequate because it lacked information on how to exercise due process rights.
• Contended they faced imminent, irreparable harm, including potential indefinite detention in a foreign sovereign's custody.
• Asserted that the district court's inaction for over 14 hours constituted a constructive denial of their emergency motion.

• Asserted the right to remove members of Tren de Aragua quickly based on national security interests and Presidential Proclamation No. 10903.
• Argued that removing putative class members as soon as a day after notice would be consistent with due process obligations.
• Contended, via the Fifth Circuit's dismissal, that the appeal was premature because the district court had not been given sufficient time to act.
• Represented that they would not remove named petitioners while their individual habeas proceedings were pending.

• The Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Relying on *Carson v. American Brands, Inc.*, the Court reasoned that appellate courts may review interlocutory orders with "the practical effect of refusing an injunction," and a district court's inaction during extreme urgency constitutes a constructive denial.
• The Court affirmed that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process in removal proceedings, citing *Trump v. J. G. G.*.
• Applying *Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.*, the Court stated notice must be "reasonably calculated" to inform parties and afford a "reasonable time" to respond.
• The Court held that AEA detainees must receive notice within a reasonable time and in a manner allowing them to "actually seek habeas relief," as established in *Trump v. J. G. G.*.
• It concluded that notice given roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information on how to exercise due process rights, is constitutionally insufficient.
• The Court ruled that temporary injunctive relief may be issued to a putative class to preserve jurisdiction without first deciding formal class certification, citing *Rubenstein, Newberg & Rubenstein on Class Actions*.
• It further reasoned, citing *FBI v. Fikre*, that a defendant cannot defeat class treatment by promising to treat named plaintiffs differently as a "matter of grace."