DHS v. D.V.D.: The Supreme Court Lifted the Notice Requirement for Third-Country Removals. Argument Is December 9.

A third-country removal is deportation to a country that is not the person’s own — one that has agreed to take them. Since the spring of 2025 a federal court in Massachusetts has tried, in a series of orders, to require the government to tell people where they were going and give them a chance to say they feared it; the government has had those orders stayed for most of that time. As of September 29 the latest one is suspended while the Supreme Court decides whether it was ever valid.

What the lower courts required

The district court’s February 25, 2026 final judgment, affirmed in relevant part by the First Circuit on September 18, 2026, declared that class members have a right to meaningful notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim before removal to any third country, and vacated DHS’s 2025 guidance on such removals under the Administrative Procedure Act. As the First Circuit summarized it, the judgment requires DHS “to provide class members with effective notice of DHS’s intention to remove them 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.” The judgment had been stayed pending appeal from March until the First Circuit dissolved its stay on September 23; six days later the Supreme Court stayed it again.

What the Supreme Court did

The order reads, in part: “The February 25, 2026 order and judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 1:25-cv-10676, are stayed. The application is also treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the petition is granted.” The Court directed briefing on three substantive questions, plus any others the government deems appropriate: whether the district court had jurisdiction; whether it could enter classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); and whether the guidance “is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations.” Petitioners’ brief was due today; respondents’ is due November 16; argument is December 9. The stay lasts until the Court’s judgment issues, likely in 2027.

What applies in the meantime

The 2025 guidance is back in force. Under it, where a receiving country has given diplomatic assurances the State Department deems credible, DHS may remove without individualized notice or a fear interview; where it has not, DHS gives notice and screens for fear only if the person affirmatively raises one — officers are not required to ask. The practical consequence for a detained person is that a removal to a country they have never seen can happen quickly, and the opportunity to object may not be offered.

What that means for a case

Protection under the Convention Against Torture is country-specific. A person who fears torture in a particular third country has to say so, on the record, with country-conditions evidence for that country, before the removal — because after September 29 the government is not required to ask. For anyone in detention with a final order, that is a conversation to have with counsel now, and the objection belongs in the file whether or not anyone invites it. Our country-conditions library exists for exactly this.

This article is general legal information about a pending Supreme Court case, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The procedures that apply to any individual removal depend on that person's circumstances and may change with the Court's decision. Consult a qualified immigration attorney immediately if you or a family member face removal. This website is attorney advertising.