On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426, a class case about removing people to countries that are not named in their removal orders. The same day, the Court granted the government's application to stay the lower-court ruling, which allows third-country removals to continue while the case is decided. The docket shows the case set for argument on Wednesday, December 9, 2026, after a First Circuit decision of September 18, 2026.
Table of Contents
The questions before the Court
The Court's order directs the parties to brief and argue:
- whether the district court had jurisdiction over the respondents' claims;
- whether the district court had authority to enter classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1);
- whether the government's guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA) and the Convention Against Torture regulations;
- other questions the government considers appropriate.
The legal background
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) sets out how the country of removal is chosen, including the country the person designates and, in some circumstances, other countries willing to accept the person. The Convention Against Torture, implemented through FARRA, prohibits returning a person to a country where he or she would more likely than not be tortured. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) limits the power of lower courts to enjoin or restrain the operation of certain removal provisions except as to an individual noncitizen. The Supreme Court held in 2022 that this provision bars classwide injunctions; D.V.D. asks whether it also reaches classwide declaratory relief and vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Who is affected
The case matters most to people with final removal orders who won withholding of removal or CAT protection as to their home country. That is a common outcome for people with criminal convictions that bar asylum but not those forms of protection; see asylum, withholding and CAT with a criminal record. Protection as to one country does not by itself prevent removal to another.
Practical steps
- Keep complete copies of every Immigration Judge order, especially orders granting withholding or CAT protection and naming the protected country.
- If ICE proposes removal to a third country and the person fears harm there, the fear should be raised immediately, in writing, and with counsel.
- Families should know the procedural posture of the case; see how removal orders are appealed and the deportation process timeline.
- People already removed should review the rules on returning after removal.
What to watch
The government filed its opening brief on October 23, 2026. A decision is likely before the end of the Court's term. Until then, the stay means lower-court limits on third-country removals are not in effect. The case also raises general questions about how courts review agency guidance; Norton v. SUWA and the discrete-action rule explains one of the limits courts apply to challenges against agency action. For the parallel Supreme Court case on detention, see Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha.
Related Guides on This Site
See also How Long Does the Deportation Process Typically Take for Individuals Facing Removal Proceedings in the United States. See also Can You Be Deported After Getting a Green Card. See also Demystifying the ICE Deportation Process How It Works.
Disclosure: Criminal Immigration Law collaborates with the law firm that publishes Mandamus.com and N600K.com; some articles link to their guides. General information only, not legal advice.
Every day you wait can change the outcome of your case.
Talk to a criminal immigration attorney today — no cost, no obligation.