Change of Venue, TROs, and Class Actions
in North Carolina:

At its core, change of venue refers to the process of moving a lawsuit from one court to another. This can occur for various reasons, but the most common is to ensure a fair trial. For instance, if a case has received extensive media coverage in one jurisdiction, a party might argue that an impartial jury cannot be found, necessitating a transfer to a different location. In other cases, venue changes are driven by jurisdictional rules, particularly in federal litigation, where statutes like 28 U.S.C. § 1391 dictate where a case can be filed based on factors such as the defendant’s residence or where the events in question occurred.

However, venue isn’t just about logistics, it’s also about strategy and justice. The choice of jurisdiction can influence everything from the presiding judge’s perspective to the applicable local laws, making it a pivotal consideration in civil cases.

This strategic element becomes even more pronounced when cases land in districts known for their political leanings. For instance, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which spans much of the western United States, including California, is often characterized as a liberal stronghold. Its rulings frequently align with progressive values, such as expansive interpretations of civil rights or protections for immigrants. This reputation can make the 9th Circuit a preferred venue for plaintiffs seeking favorable outcomes on issues like environmental regulation or individual liberties.

Conversely, very conservative districts, such as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals covering Texas and parts of the South, tend to favor limited government intervention and strict statutory interpretations. Known for its conservative bent, the 5th Circuit often issues rulings that appeal to traditionalist perspectives, such as upholding restrictive state laws or supporting executive authority in national security matters. The ideological tilt of these districts can play a pivotal role in case outcomes. For example, a civil rights challenge might fare better in the 9th Circuit’s liberal environment, while a case defending governmental policy could find a more receptive audience in the 5th Circuit’s conservative domain.

These differences highlight why venue matters. In the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Alien Enemies Act, the shift of venue from Washington, D.C. to Texas—a 5th Circuit jurisdiction—demonstrates how a conservative district might approach the case differently than a liberal one like the 9th Circuit. Such moves can influence not just procedural steps but the substantive rulings themselves, making venue a critical factor in legal strategy.

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, is a rarely invoked law that allows the government to detain and deport noncitizens deemed “enemies” during times of declared war. Recently, the Trump administration utilized this act to target alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, arguing that their removal was a matter of national security. This decision sparked immediate legal challenges from immigrant rights groups, including the ACLU and Democracy Forward, who filed lawsuits in Washington, D.C., asserting that the act’s use in peacetime violated constitutional due process protections.

Initially, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued TROs to halt deportations, but the administration appealed. In a landmark 5-4 decision, SCOTUS vacated those orders, ruling that challenges to detention and removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be filed in the district where the detainees are confined—in this case, Texas—not Washington, D.C, where the Executive Order to use the Act was issued. The Court emphasized that while detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, those challenges must occur in the proper jurisdiction.

This ruling is a textbook example of a change of venue in action. By mandating that cases be filed in Texas, SCOTUS effectively shifted the legal battleground, potentially influencing the outcome. Texas courts, known for their conservative leanings, may be less sympathetic to the detainees’ claims than those in Washington, D.C., illustrating how venue can shape justice.

As of April 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg is still considering whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for potentially violating his March 15 order to halt deportation flights to El Salvador. Boasberg has expressed skepticism about the administration’s claim that they couldn’t comply because the planes were over international waters, stating there is a “fair likelihood” of a violation. He has ordered the Justice Department to provide more information, including sworn declarations, to determine if contempt is warranted. While Boasberg has not yet issued a final ruling on contempt, he has extended the TROs in Texas and New York until April 15, 2025, giving the 261 deportees more time to seek habeas relief (a determination of whether their detainment is lawful) as mandated by SCOTUS.

This underscores the ongoing tension between the judiciary and the executive branches. While the administration may avoid a contempt ruling, the extended TROs ensure that due process remains a priority, at least temporarily, for those facing removal under the Alien Enemies Act.

Amid this venue dispute, TROs have played a crucial role. A Temporary Restraining Order is a short-term court order that prevents a party from taking specific actions until a full hearing can occur. In this case, TROs were initially issued in Washington, D.C., and, following the SCOTUS ruling, reissued in Texas and New York to temporarily halt deportations while the legal process unfolds.

TROs are vital stopgap measures. For the detainees, they provide a lifeline, preventing immediate removal to foreign prisons while their challenges are sorted out. The reissuance of TROs in Texas and New York after the venue shift demonstrates their adaptability, buying time for legal teams to refile in the correct jurisdictions and ensuring that due process isn’t entirely lost in the shuffle. However, TROs are temporary by design; their expiration sets the stage for more permanent resolutions, making the venue ruling all the more critical.

The rapid pace of the Alien Enemies Act case highlights a key distinction in how courts operate: emergency relief versus the regular docket. Understanding this difference can shed light on why legal battles like this unfold the way they do—and how they impact your case.

• Emergency Relief (Shadow Docket): The Supreme Court’s April 7 ruling came via its emergency docket, often called the “shadow docket.” This process handles urgent requests—like the administration’s appeal to lift Boasberg’s TRO—on an expedited basis. Unlike regular cases, emergency appeals involve limited briefing, no oral arguments, and often unsigned opinions with little explanation. In the Alien Enemies Act case, the Court acted quickly to address the TRO, but critics, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, have warned that such “shadow docket” rulings can lack transparency and increase the risk of error, especially in high-stakes matters with life-or-death consequences.
• Regular Docket: Most cases reach the Supreme Court through the regular docket, which involves extensive briefing, oral arguments, and detailed opinions after months of deliberation. This process allows for a thorough examination of legal issues, ensuring well-reasoned decisions. In the Alien Enemies Act case, the broader question of the act’s constitutionality in peacetime may eventually return to SCOTUS on the regular docket, offering a chance for a more comprehensive ruling.

For our clients, this distinction matters. Emergency relief can provide immediate protection—like a TRO preventing USCIS from denying work authorizations during visa processing delays—but its speed can lead to uncertainty. The regular docket offers clarity but takes time, which isn’t always an option in urgent situations. At Dummit Fradin, while we don’t handle federal cases, we routinely navigate similar timelines and utilize these legal processes to protect your rights, whether you need quick relief or a long-term strategy.

On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a directive via its emergency docket, ordering the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. This ruling came after the administration wrongly removed the man, highlighting errors in its immigration enforcement. The Court’s use of “facilitate” has drawn attention, and for good reason—it’s not a straightforward command, and that subtlety matters.

Unlike the regular docket’s detailed opinions, the shadow docket operates on speed, often with minimal explanation. Here, “facilitate” gives the administration wiggle room, suggesting effort without mandating a specific outcome, reflecting the Court’s cautious approach in these expedited cases. This ambiguity can delay or complicate the man’s return, showing how shadow docket language shapes real-world consequences.

Another key element in this legal saga is the potential for class actions. A class action lawsuit allows a group of individuals with similar claims to sue as a single entity rather than pursuing separate cases. In the Alien Enemies Act context, the ACLU sought to certify a class action representing all noncitizens detained under the policy, arguing that its broad application warranted a collective challenge.

While the SCOTUS ruling vacated the nationwide TRO and shifted venue to individual districts, it didn’t explicitly rule on the class action component. This leaves open the possibility that a class action could still be pursued in Texas or other districts where detainees are held. Why does this matter? Class actions offer strength in numbers and keep attorneys from having to file in 94 different districts on behalf of clients in substantially similar circumstances. For marginalized groups like these noncitizens, who may lack the resources for individual lawsuits, a class action can streamline the legal process, amplify their collective voice, and challenge systemic policies more effectively. A successful class action could potentially halt the policy’s implementation nationwide, making it a powerful tool for justice.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Alien Enemies Act serves as a definitive illustration of how legal mechanisms such as change of venue, Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs), and class actions can decisively influence the outcome of a case. For our clients in the Triad—Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point, and the surrounding counties—these concepts are far from theoretical; they are powerful tools that can significantly impact your circumstances. Whether you are addressing a workplace injury, tackling an immigration issue, or facing criminal charges, mastering these legal strategies is essential for securing the results you desire.