For the second time, the Trump administration has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court over a Boston judge’s ruling on “third-country” deportations: removing people to countries that are not their own and were never named in their deportation orders. The emergency application was filed on September 24, 2026, one day after the First Circuit put Judge Brian E. Murphy’s final judgment into effect.
The case is D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-10676-BEM in the District of Massachusetts. Here is what the courts actually ordered, based on the rulings themselves.
What “third-country removal” means
A final order of removal names the country a person is to be deported to, usually the person’s country of citizenship or a country the person designated. A third-country removal sends the person somewhere else. According to Reuters, reporting through Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, more than 25,000 people have been deported to 29 countries under the policy, most to Mexico, with others sent to countries including South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic. That tally comes from human rights groups, and we have not verified it.
The policy at issue is contained in a March 30, 2025 DHS memorandum titled “Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals” and a July 9, 2025 ICE memorandum issued after the Supreme Court’s first order in this case.
What Judge Murphy ordered
On February 25, 2026, Judge Murphy entered final judgment for a nationwide class. The class covers people with final removal orders whom DHS has deported or will deport on or after February 18, 2025 to a country not previously designated in their proceedings and not identified in writing as a country of removal.
The judgment made these declarations, among others:
- class members “have the right to meaningful notice before removal to any third country”;
- class members “have the right to a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim against removal before removal to any third country”; and
- the DHS and ICE memoranda are “unlawful,” and the court “SETS ASIDE that policy.”
The practical point is the second declaration. A person who fears persecution or torture in a particular country can raise that claim, under the withholding of removal statute and the Convention Against Torture, only if the person knows which country it is. A removal with no advance notice of the destination makes that protection impossible to use.
What the First Circuit did
A First Circuit panel of Judges Montecalvo, Howard and Aframe first stayed the judgment pending appeal on March 16, 2026. On September 18, it decided the appeal.
The court affirmed almost all of the judgment. It held the guidance unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act because it “violates the class’s statutory and regulatory rights,” and it affirmed the requirements that DHS give class members “effective notice” of a planned removal to a specified third country and “a meaningful opportunity to contest removal to that third country on the ground that they have a reasonable fear of being persecuted or tortured there.”
It reversed one piece. Judge Murphy had also declared that DHS must first try to remove people to their designated country or country of citizenship before resorting to a third country. The First Circuit held that the named plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to press that “sequencing” claim and vacated those two declarations. It did not reach the constitutional due process question, because the statutory and regulatory ruling was enough.
On September 23, after the plaintiffs asked the court to clarify whether its decision was in effect, the panel ordered that “the March 16, 2026, stay pending appeal is dissolved.” Trina Realmuto, the plaintiffs’ lawyer at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, told Reuters that the order “makes crystal clear no flights or buses should carry out third-country removals.”
Why the government went back to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has been here before. In June 2025, in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153, it stayed Judge Murphy’s earlier preliminary injunction. That was an interim order on an emergency application, not a decision on the merits.
The posture now is different. This is a final judgment after full briefing, affirmed in a written appellate opinion. In its September 24 filing, the Justice Department told the Court that the lower court rulings disrupt “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens,” that flights and planned removals have already been canceled, and that the rulings harm diplomatic arrangements. “While certain aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, the nation does not,” the filing said, according to Reuters.
The government is asking the Supreme Court to put the judgment on hold while it seeks review. It is not yet asking the Court to decide the merits.
What the ruling does and does not require
- It does not stop deportations. People with final removal orders can still be removed to the country named in their orders.
- It does not bar third-country removals outright. It requires notice of the specific country and a real chance to raise a fear-based claim before removal there.
- It no longer requires DHS to try the designated country first. The First Circuit vacated that part.
- It applies to the certified class, defined in the final judgment, not to everyone in immigration proceedings.
Frequently asked questions
What is the D.V.D. case?
D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a class action in federal court in Boston challenging DHS’s policy of deporting people to countries not named in their removal orders without notice. Judge Brian E. Murphy set aside the policy in a February 25, 2026 final judgment.
What did the First Circuit decide on September 18, 2026?
It affirmed that the policy is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and that class members must get effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fear of persecution or torture before removal to a third country. It vacated the part of the judgment requiring DHS to try the designated country first, for lack of standing.
Is the ruling in effect?
Yes, as of September 23, 2026, when the First Circuit dissolved its earlier stay. The administration asked the Supreme Court on September 24 to pause it.
Did the Supreme Court already rule for the government in this case?
In June 2025 it stayed an earlier preliminary injunction on an emergency basis. That was not a merits decision, and the case has since gone to final judgment and been affirmed on appeal.
Sources: Final Judgment (Dkt. 242, February 25, 2026), the First Circuit’s opinion (Dkt. 254, September 18, 2026) and order (Dkt. 256, September 23, 2026) in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-10676-BEM (D. Mass.), First Circuit No. 26-1212, read from CourtListener’s RECAP archive. The government’s September 24 application, the deportation tally and the quotations from counsel are from Reuters as published by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, September 25, 2026; we have not read the application itself. General information about immigration law, not legal advice.