D.V.D. v. DHS (Third Country Deportations) - District Court

[ARCHIVED - September 2025]

Four individuals with final removal orders filed a class action lawsuit against DHS, challenging DHS’s policy of deporting noncitizens to countries the government never raised as possible countries of removal during their immigration proceedings, without notice or the opportunity to contest the removal due to a fear of persecution, torture, and possible death if deported. The lawsuit also challenges a February 18, 2025 directive instructing DHS officers to review the cases of individuals previously released from immigration detention—including those who have complied with the terms of their release—for re-detention and removal to a third country.

Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) the same day they filed the complaint, and on March 23, Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify a class of individuals affected by Defendants’ actions. The Court held a hearing on the TRO on March 28, 2025, and granted the TRO that same day, temporarily blocking the government from deporting individuals, including Plaintiffs, to a third country without giving written notice of the third country and providing a meaningful opportunity to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The TRO will be in place until a decision on the preliminary injunction.

On April 18, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class and granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the Court enjoined Defendants from deporting any noncitizen with a final removal order to any country not explicitly stated on the individual’s removal order, without first providing to the individual the following due-process guarantees: (1) written notice to the individual and the individual’s immigration counsel of the third country to which the individual may be removed, in a language the individual can understand; (2) meaningful opportunity for the individual to raise a fear of return for Convention Against Torture protections; (3) moving to reopen the proceedings if the individual demonstrates “reasonable fear”; and (4) if the individual is not found to have demonstrated “reasonable fear,” providing meaningful opportunity and a minimum of 15 days for the individual to seek to move to reopen their own immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal.

Following a hearing on April 28, 2025, Judge Murphy ordered each party to submit a brief memorandum addressing whether the Court had authority to modify its preliminary injunction while an appeal is pending, in order to prevent transfer of class members to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then to a third country. On April 30, the Court modified a portion of its preliminary injunction to require Defendants to provide the PI’s due process guarantees before removing or allowing another agency to remove individuals from Guantanamo Bay to a third country.

On May 7, 2025, following media reports of planned action to deport class members to Libya, Plaintiffs filed another motion for a TRO seeking to prevent class members from being removed to Libya, countries in route to Libya, and any other third countries without application of the PI’s due process guarantees. Later that day, Judge Murphy clarified that any such action would clearly violate the terms of his April 30 Amendment to the PI. Additionally, on May 7, based on DHS's representations that the Department of Defense (“DoD”) had been conducting third country removals (allegedly without any involvement of DHS) the Court ordered the parties to submit, by May 14, memoranda addressing whether DoD should be joined as a party in this case.

On May 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an additional emergency motion for a TRO and PI to protect one of the pseudonymous plaintiffs, O.C.G.,  whose identity DHS revealed in violation of the Court’s pseudonym order. Plaintiffs seek an order facilitating the plaintiff’s return to the U.S. given the danger he faces in Guatemala. On May 20, Plaintiffs filed another emergency motion for a TRO and PI to stop the removal to South Sudan of class members to whom Defendants failed to provide an opportunity to apply for protections under the Convention Against Torture, in violation of the court’s preliminary injunction. 

On May 21, following an emergency hearing the day prior, Judge Murphy found that the Defendants violated his preliminary injunction by failing to provide six class members—already en route to South Sudan and being held at a military base in Djibouti—a “meaningful opportunity” to apply for CAT protection before initiating removal to a third country. He ordered that the Defendants provide this meaningful opportunity—a private reasonable fear interview with access to counsel, among other requirements—to the six class members, and required that Defendants submit further declarations confirming compliance with the preliminary injunction. 

On May 23, 2025, Judge Murphy granted Plaintiffs’ motion to protect O.C.G. and ordered Defendants to take steps to facilitate his return to the U.S. That same day, Defendants moved for reconsideration of previous preliminary injunction orders entered, but the court denied the request. Defendants then filed a motion to stay (pause) Judge Murphy’s April 18, 2025 PI with the 1st Cir. (which was denied on May 26) and then with the Supreme Court.

On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the Government’s stay request, pausing Judge Murphy’s April 18, 2025, Preliminary Injunction. The ruling–a brief, unreasoned order–allows DHS to resume third-country removals while the First Circuit appeal proceeds. In dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, criticized the Court for enabling ongoing due process violations, calling the Court’s decision a “gross abuse” of equitable discretion.

Immediately following the Supreme Court’s order, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion to Enforce the District Court’s May 21 Order. On June 24, Judge Murphy denied Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion as unnecessary, stating that his May 21 remedial order—designed as a remedy for prior violations—remains fully in effect despite the Supreme Court’s order. Later that day, Defendants filed a request for clarification with the Supreme Court, asserting that the Supreme Court’s stay also “effectively stayed” Judge Murphy’s May 21 order.  Defendants also urged the Court to clarify that the government could immediately resume third‑country removals from Djibouti, arguing that Judge Murphy’s actions reflected “defiance” of the Supreme Court’s authority. Plaintiffs argued that the May 21 order remained valid because it addressed the government’s prior violation of the April 18 preliminary injunction.

On June 30, the government filed an amended notice of appeal to include additional district court orders to appeal.

On July 15, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an indicative ruling that the court would dissolve its previously-issued preliminary injunction if the First Circuit remanded the appeal back to the court; a motion for partial summary judgment to declare the third country deportation practice unlawful and block it; and a motion to expedite a hearing on the summary judgment motion and simultaneously pause the discovery into Defendants’ compliance with the TRO so the parties can focus on that motion.