A Texas judge on Friday handed the Trump administration a win in an Alien Enemies Act (AEA) case by blocking several immigrant detainees from pursuing their claims as a group, or collectively.

In a 48-page ruling, U.S. District Judge James Hendrix, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, determined that the three petitioners were too “distinct” and “diverse” in terms of facts, claims, and potential solutions to form a cohesive class.

The underlying litigation is one of many AEA cases directly tracing its lineage to the U.S. Supreme Court’s blockbuster April 7 ruling, which dissolved a nationwide injunction barring summary deportations under the auspices of the obscure 18th-century wartime law. Simultaneously, the nine justices agreed the government could not use the AEA without due process and prescribed the use of habeas corpus petitions.

Hendrix, in his order, is ever mindful of the Supreme Court’s guidance. The judge goes so far as to stay the effect of his ruling until the detainees have the opportunity to seek and receive — or be denied — consideration at the highest level.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

While not necessarily a setback for the detained immigrants who are currently parties to the litigation, the district court’s order frustrates the American Civil Liberties Union’s efforts to litigate on behalf of any other potential detainees “who were, are, or will be” under the AEA deportation dragnet in the sprawling Northern District of Texas.

For now, however, the court agreed with a government filing arguing the petitioners lack “commonality and typicality” required under the relevant rule of civil procedure that governs class certification.

“The petitioners bring many independent claims driven by individual circumstances, rendering them atypical from potential class members,” the order goes on. “Moreover, the petitioners’ varying circumstances prevent them from satisfying Rule 23(b)(2)’s uniformity-of-relief requirement.”

In the class certification request, the petitioners “focus almost exclusively” on the argument that Trump’s AEA proclamation “is invalid,” the order notes. While such an argument provides a notable measure of harmony throughout the would-be class, Hendrix says it’s insufficient.

“[T]he Court cannot assume that this argument will prevail and ignore the several additional claims,” Hendrix explains. “And those claims are highly individualized and would prove unworkable as a class due to atypicality.”

The judge delineates how this might play out, at length:

[W]hile the three petitioners have filed asylum applications, the Court has no way of knowing how many putative class members have pending asylum applications or intend to file asylum applications. This distinction is material. If the petitioners do not prevail on their first claim regarding the President’s Proclamation, but do prevail on their third claim for relief regarding the application of the INA’s asylum provisions, then the due process required for members of the class would differ depending on whether the member of the putative class seeks to file or has already filed an asylum application.

In other words, the court envisions a scenario where asylum claims protect some people contesting an AEA designation, while the asylum theory of protection might not even be available to others.

The judge goes through each of the petitioners’ various other claims, aside from asylum, and points out in each instance that the relevant inquiries require an assessment of facts. Such assessments, the court says, weigh against finding typicality among detainees.