Passim

Issues › Removal

Removals to third countries not named in removal orders

In effect

In effect; Supreme Court review pending

Argument set for December 9, 2026 in DHS v. D.V.D., No. 26-426

The Supreme Court’s September 29, 2026 stay of the D.V.D. judgment lasts until it sends down its judgment; argument is set for December 9. That judgment supplies no operative bar to the guidance. Separately, the November 6 Project Rousseau order bars removal of five identified Afghan clients to Pakistan, Afghanistan or any other third country until further order and requires one week’s notice of removal plans. It extends the former November 7 TRO endpoint without certifying a class or entering final judgment.

Status as of
November 11, 2026
Latest docket refresh
November 11, 2026
Linked-case review
Nothing new since the last review

Docket collection does not update the legal status above. Court actions collected after a case's last review are listed on this page until they are reviewed.

The policy

Since early 2025, DHS has removed people with final removal orders to countries other than those designated in their orders, under a March 30, 2025 DHS memorandum ("Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals") and a July 9, 2025 ICE memorandum. A certified class challenges the policy in D.V.D. v. DHS in the District of Massachusetts, arguing that removal without meaningful notice and a chance to raise fear-based claims violates the INA, the Convention Against Torture's implementing law and due process. The district court set the policy aside in February 2026 and the First Circuit largely affirmed, but the Supreme Court stayed that judgment and will hear the case. Individual detainees have also sought stays of particular third-country removals in other circuits.

Court rulings

Rulings on the policy by court. Stay and procedural rulings say what the court did and aren't counted in the circuit row.

  1. 1Against
  2. 2No ruling
  3. 3No ruling
  4. 4No ruling
  5. 5No ruling
  6. 6No ruling
  7. 7No ruling
  8. 8No ruling
  9. 9No ruling
  10. 10No ruling
  11. 11No ruling
  12. DCNo ruling
  • Ruled against the policy
  • Upheld the policy
  • Mixed or split
  • No merits ruling tracked
CourtRulingCaseNote
D. Mass. Ruled against the policy D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityNo. 1:25-cv-10676 · Feb 25, 2026 Set aside the March and July 2025 guidance; classwide declarations on notice and a chance to raise fear claims. Stayed by the Supreme Court.
1st Cir. Ruled against the policy D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityNo. 1:25-cv-10676 · Sep 18, 2026 Affirmed except two country-sequencing declarations, vacated for lack of standing. Review granted, No. 26-426.
5th Cir. Emergency stay deniedStay ruling Abasse Gakou v. Warden of the Prairieland Detention CenterNo. 26-10925 · Oct 10, 2026 Published order denying stays of removal to Sierra Leone. The Fifth Circuit held § 1252(g) bars the stay motion and, in its own reading of the Supreme Court's D.V.D. stay, found no likely success. Not a ruling on the guidance.

Who's covered

  • Named parties · Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella

    Project Rousseau: ECF 21 protects the five Afghan nationals identified by the organization and in ECF 16 from removal to Pakistan, Afghanistan or any other third country until further order. It requires at least one week’s notice of removal plans. This is individual temporary protection; no class has been certified. The court ordered an amended complaint joining the clients and specifying individual and venue facts.

    Source

Relief that's stayed

A higher court has stayed these orders, so they give no relief while the stay lasts.

  • Not currently operative. Certified class · D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

    No currently enforceable relief under this stayed judgment. The D.V.D. class was certified on April 18, 2025. The February 25, 2026 judgment's declarations run to this class, and it set aside the guidance itself; the Supreme Court stayed that judgment on September 29, 2026. The stay doesn't affect other protections a class member may have. The class doesn't include people removed under expedited removal orders (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)).

    All individuals who have a final removal order issued in proceedings under Section 240, 241(a)(5), or 238(b) of the INA (including withholding-only proceedings) whom DHS has deported or will deport on or after February 18, 2025, to a country (a) not previously designated as the country or alternative country of removal, and (b) not identified in writing in the prior proceedings as a country to which the individual would be removed.

    Certification order

For practitioners

  • The challenged March 30, 2025 DHS and July 9, 2025 ICE third-country-removal memoranda were set aside by the February 25, 2026 judgment, which dissolved the April 18, 2025 injunction; that judgment is stayed. The class covers final orders under INA sections 240, 241(a)(5) or 238(b), including withholding-only proceedings, and removals on or after February 18, 2025 to countries not designated or identified in writing in prior proceedings. It excludes expedited removal under section 1225(b). [1][2][3]
  • The Supreme Court directed briefing on four questions: whether the district court had jurisdiction; whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) allowed classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur; whether the guidance is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or FARRA/CAT and its regulations; and other questions the government finds appropriate. The government's brief and the joint appendix were filed October 23, 2026. [1][2]
  • Two published appellate orders denied individual stays after the Supreme Court's September 29 stay. The Fifth Circuit held in a published order that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred it from entertaining a motion to stay a third-country removal (Gakou, Oct. 10, 2026). The Sixth Circuit denied an emergency stay of removal to Ghana in a published order, relying on the D.V.D. stay (Ojukwu, No. 26-3891, Oct. 9, 2026). [1][2]
  • Earlier stays: the Supreme Court stayed the April 18, 2025 classwide preliminary injunction on June 23, 2025 (No. 24A1153) and granted the government's motion to clarify on July 3, 2025. The First Circuit stayed the February 2026 judgment pending appeal on March 16, 2026, then decided the appeal on September 18, 2026. [1][2][3]
  • Project Rousseau’s November 6 TRO protects five identified Afghan clients until further order and requires one week’s removal notice. The November 9 amended complaint names six individual plaintiffs and pleads APA, Accardi, due-process and INA/FARRA claims; it does not expand the five-person TRO. ECF 31 records a proposed scheduling order filed November 10. Its dates and any adoption remain unverified; no preliminary-injunction ruling is established. [1][2][3][4][5]

In plain language

The government sends some people to countries not named in their deportation orders. A class sued in Massachusetts, seeking notice and a chance to explain feared harm. The district court agreed in February 2026 and an appeals court mostly agreed in September. On September 29, the Supreme Court put that judgment on hold; arguments are set for December 9. The guidance remains in effect. Separately, a November 6 New York order protects five identified Afghan clients in Project Rousseau from removal to Pakistan, Afghanistan or another third country until further order and requires a week’s advance notice of removal plans. It does not protect everyone affected by this policy. An amended complaint was filed November 9; that filing does not decide the claims. An immigration lawyer can explain any protections in an individual case.

Find free or low-cost legal help

New on the dockets, not yet reviewed

Court actions picked up from the dockets after the last review. They're quoted as filed and don't change the status until they're checked against the order.

Nothing new since the last review.

How we got here

  1. Docket recorded proposed preliminary-injunction schedule

    Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  2. Docket recorded amended complaint

    Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  3. Amended complaint names six Afghan individuals as plaintiffs

    Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  4. Court amended and extended TRO protecting five identified Afghan clients

    Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  5. Government filed opposition and declaration concerning Afghan clients

    Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  6. Court entered limited consent TRO concerning Afghan removal flights

    Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  7. Plaintiff moved for emergency TRO

    Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  8. Organization filed APA and due-process challenge to Afghan removals

    Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  9. Government submitted opening merits brief and joint appendix

    D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D. Mass. · Source

  10. Fifth Circuit denied administrative and pending-appeal removal stays

    Abasse Gakou v. Warden of the Prairieland Detention Center · 5th Cir. · Source

  11. Supreme Court stayed D.V.D. judgment and granted review

    D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D. Mass. · Source

  12. D.V.D. respondents opposed Supreme Court stay request

    D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D. Mass. · Source

Show all 16

  1. DHS sought Supreme Court stay after First Circuit ruling

    D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D. Mass. · Source

  2. First Circuit largely affirmed third-country-removal notice ruling

    D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D. Mass. · Source

  3. First Circuit stayed district court ruling pending appeal

    D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D. Mass. · Source

  4. District court held latest third-country-removal policy unlawful

    D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D. Mass. · Source

Status changes

Selected changes since June 23, 2025, each with the order behind it.

  • In effect; Supreme Court review pending. After the First Circuit largely affirmed, the Supreme Court stayed the judgment and granted certiorari (No. 26-426). Source
  • First Circuit stayed judgment pending appeal. A divided panel stayed the February 25, 2026 judgment that set aside the guidance. Source
  • Supreme Court stayed classwide injunction. The Court stayed the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction pending appeal and any certiorari petition (No. 24A1153). Source

Cases (3)

CaseCourtLatestAs of
D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityNo. 1:25-cv-10676 · Lead case · Class actionD. Mass.Supreme Court stayed D.V.D. judgment and granted reviewOct 23, 2026
Abasse Gakou v. Warden of the Prairieland Detention CenterNo. 26-109255th Cir.Fifth Circuit denied stays of third-country removalOct 10, 2026
Project Rousseau, Inc. v. David J. VenturellaNo. 1:26-cv-09602S.D.N.Y.Amended TRO bars removal of five Afghan clients until further orderNov 10, 2026

In the news

Every status statement on this page links to the order it rests on. Docket entries marked "not yet reviewed" are quoted as filed. How we track litigation