Legal update: October 5, 2026
The Supreme Court has paused a lower-court judgment governing third-country removals while it considers the case. The stay changes which court-ordered protections are enforceable during review; it is not a final decision that the government’s policy is lawful.
For noncitizens with final removal orders—particularly those who already have withholding of removal or CAT protection—the country DHS proposes as the destination can be critically important. Protection from removal to one country does not necessarily resolve the risks of removal to another.
What Did the Supreme Court Do?
On September 29, 2026, the Court stayed the District of Massachusetts’s February 25, 2026 order and judgment in D.V.D. v. DHS, No. 1:25-cv-10676. It also granted review in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426. The case is scheduled for oral argument on December 9, 2026. The Court’s order will remain in effect until its judgment is sent down.
What Are Third-Country Removals?
In this litigation, “third-country removal” generally refers to removal to a country that was not previously designated as the country or alternative country of removal in the person’s immigration proceedings. A person may have little or no connection to that country. The dispute concerns the process for identifying the destination and allowing a person to raise country-specific objections before removal.
The February judgment declared that class members were entitled to meaningful notice before removal to a third country and a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim before removal. The court also held that DHS must comply with statutory requirements governing the sequence of countries to which removal is sought, declared the challenged DHS and ICE third-country-removal guidance unlawful, and set that policy aside. The district-court decision in the Supreme Court record provides the details.
What Changes While the Stay Is in Place?
The February order and judgment are temporarily on hold. Because the February 25 order and judgment are stayed, a person should not rely on that judgment as presently enforceable protection against third-country removal while Supreme Court review proceeds. Other statutory, regulatory, constitutional, or case-specific protections may still apply depending on the circumstances. At the same time, the stay does not erase immigration statutes, protection regulations, or a separate order applicable to an individual case.
Withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) generally concern a particular country. The withholding and CAT regulation addresses third-country removal. A grant of protection concerning a home country should not be treated as a guarantee against removal to every other destination.
Withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) are country-specific protections. In fact, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(f) provides that withholding or deferral does not prevent DHS from removing a person to a third country other than the country to which removal has been withheld or deferred. Thus, protection from removal to one country does not itself guarantee protection from removal to every other country.
What Will the Court Review?
The questions include the district court’s jurisdiction, its authority to provide classwide declaratory relief and set aside agency policy under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), and whether DHS’s guidance complies with the removal statute, due process, and the laws implementing CAT. Those issues remain unresolved by the September stay. Follow the official case docket for later developments.
What Should Affected Noncitizens and Families Do?
- Keep the complete record: the removal order, any withholding or CAT decision, and all notices identifying a destination.
- Contact counsel promptly: explain any transfer or removal notice, including when it was received and which country was named.
- Describe destination-specific fears: identify the feared harm and gather supporting records, rather than relying only on evidence about the home country.
- Ask about the available procedure: counsel should assess applicable deadlines, controlling law, and whether an individual request for protection or emergency court relief is available.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court approve every third-country removal?
No. A stay suspends the specified judgment while review proceeds. The Court has not issued a final merits decision in this case.
Does protection from removal to my home country cover another country?
Not automatically. Counsel should review both the existing protection order and the risks in the proposed destination.
Should I wait for the Supreme Court’s final decision?
If you receive a removal or transfer notice, seek legal advice promptly. A pending Supreme Court case does not itself pause every individual removal.
Get Advice About Your Removal Case
Wilner & O’Reilly focuses on immigration law. If a third-country removal may affect you or a family member, contact our team to discuss the record and possible next steps.
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Court orders and procedures can change; the options in an individual case depend on its facts and the law in effect.
Comments are closed.