D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security is a US class action lawsuit filed in 2025 by a Cuban immigrant, with the court-authorized pseudonym of D.V.D., and three other immigrant plaintiffs seeking to prevent their deportation to a country other than their country of origin (a third-country), without first being given the opportunity to challenge the deportation on the basis that they might face serious harm in that third-country. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., and led to two U.S. Supreme Court opinions.
The deportation was planned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The hearing took place in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts with Judge Brian E. Murphy.
The court documents state the case asks the following question:Before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there? The wording of the case continues with the following statement:Defendants argue that the United States may send a deportable alien to a country not of their origin, not where an immigration judge has ordered, where they may be immediately tortured and killed, without providing that person any opportunity to tell the deporting authorities that they face grave danger or death because of such a deportation.At the time of this court case, all nine justices of the Supreme Court had agreed in Trump v. J.G.G. that immigrants must be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation. In the end, the members of the class action were part of the deportations in the second presidency of Donald Trump. However, the appeal based upon a preliminary injunction in this case is presently ongoing.
Background Eight migrants were deported to South Sudan but were rerouted to Djibouti and were held "in a conference room in a converted Conex shipping container at Camp Lemonnier" with temperatures exceeding . Additional concerns were raised over exposure to Malaria and close proximity to burn pits. "ICE officers and detainees complained of feeling ill within three days of their arrival to the base".
During the hearing before Murphy, DHS conducted a press conference titled DHS Press Conference on Migrant Flight to South Sudan during which a spokesperson claimed that they were confirming the fact that that's not their final destination after being asked, "Is the department then confirming that this flight is going to South Sudan?".
According to The Intercept, those taken out of the United States where informed they would be flying to Louisiana, taking them "out of the country without their knowledge or consent".
OCG OCG is a Guatemalan man who traveled to the United States to claim asylum. In Mexico while traveling to the US, "he was held for ransom, raped and targeted for being gay, he said in a court declaration". "In May 2024, a U.S. asylum officer determined O.C.G. “had a reasonable fear” of returning to Guatemala". An immigration judge determined OCG would likely be persecuted in Guatemala and blocked his removal. Despite the judges actions, OCG was bussed to Mexico without notice and then sent to Guatemala where he went into hiding before returning to the United States at the order of Judge Murphy.
March 28 TRO On March 28, 2025, the court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) which prohibited the defendants from being deported to a third country as well the following:D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security. Temporary Restraining Order.Removing any individual subject to a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, i.e., a country other than the country designated for removal in immigration proceedings, UNLESS and UNTIL Defendants provide that individual, and their respective immigration counsel, if any, with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed, and UNTIL Defendants provide a meaningful opportunity for that individual to submit an application for CAT protection to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL that individual receives a final agency decision on any such application.The defendants filed an appeal the same day as the day for the announcement of the TRO.D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (25-1311). U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District.
United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit (TRO)
On March 28, the defendants filed an appeal to the court's temporary restraining order (TRO). The defendant's claimed the following:Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Immediate Administrative StayThe district court’s universal injunction is unlawful, the government will suffer tremendous irreparable harm absent a stay, and the balance of equities favors interim relief, so this Court should grant a stay pending appeal.The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, which included the following statement:Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for StayBefore the District Court, Defendants assert unfettered authority to deport noncitizens to countries that were not previously designated in immigration proceedings without providing any notice of which country, and thus without any meaningful opportunity to seek protection from persecution or torture in that unidentified country.The case was dismissed on June 30, 2025.Judgement. D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals)
April 18 preliminary injunction On April 18, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had in this case issued a preliminary injunction (preliminary legal order to stop the specific action) for all individuals who have a final removal order for whom the Department of Homeland Security has deported or will deport on or after February 18, 2025, to a country:Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Certification and Preliminary Injunction
Page 23
Not previously designated as the country or alternative country of removal, and Not identified in writing in the prior proceedings as a country to which the individual would be removed. Based on this preliminary injunction and the consequences to procedures for deportation on the national level, the defendants filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit.
United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit (Preliminary Injunction)
The appeal, based on the April 18 preliminary injunction, was filed on April 22, 2025 by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, et al. The motivation by the defendants was based upon the preliminary injection (PI) being a nationwide class action. However, the plaintiffs presented the court the following:Plaintiff Opposition to Defendant's Emergency Motion The PI does not prevent any third country deportation; rather, it requires that, beforehand, noncitizens and their counsel, if any, must receive written notice of the country to which they will be deported in a language they understand and a meaningful opportunity to assert a claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) related to that third country. On July 10, the attorneys for the class action filed the following to the court as a class action complaint:Class Action Complaint DHS’ policy or practice of failing to afford these basic, minimal protections violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the treaty obligations of the United States
U.S. Supreme Court opinion on application of stay
U.S. Supreme Court determined in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (June 23, 2025) that the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction was stayed (temporarily halted), pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari (a court process to seek judicial review).
The legal theory on deportation to a third country
The Supreme court opinion describes U.S. law on deportation to a third country as an action of last resort. However, non-citizens are allowed to raise a claim under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The U.S. is part of the United Nation Convention. In 1998, Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, which states that:It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.
Dissenting opinion Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented on the ruling. The following is introduction to the dissenting opinion:In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there. Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel. An attentive District Court’s timely intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya.
May 21 order on remedy After the Supreme Court had issued an injunction in the April 28 case, the District Court issued an “order on remedy” on May 21. The order directs the Government to follow specified procedures with respect to those individuals, tailored to the circumstances. Out of concern that a federal deportation of migrants to a country, unrelated to the migrant's nation of origin (third country), may be a risk of torture and based upon the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the remedial order requires "written notice to both the non-citizen and the non-citizen’s counsel in a language the non-citizen can understand" where:Memorandum of Preliminary Injunction.
D.V.D. et v. Department of Homeland Security et al.Following notice, the individual must be given a meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of ten days, to raise a fear-based claim for CAT prior to removal.
Supreme Court opinion on clarification