What happened
A “third-country removal” is when DHS deports a person to a country that is not named in their removal order and was not identified in writing during their case. The court case about this is called D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It started in Massachusetts on March 23, 2025, and challenges two DHS policy documents: one from March 30, 2025, and an ICE memorandum from July 9, 2025. The courts call the two together “the Guidance.”
According to the appeals court's description, the March 2025 document says that if the State Department believes a country has given credible diplomatic assurances that people removed there will not be persecuted or tortured, the person “may be removed without the need for further procedures.” For other countries, officers “will not affirmatively ask” whether the person is afraid; a person who says so is sent to USCIS for a screening, which USCIS “will generally” do “within 24 hours.” The July 2025 ICE memo says ICE “will generally wait at least 24 hours” after serving a Notice of Removal before removing someone to a country without those assurances.
On February 25, 2026, the district court ruled the Guidance unlawful and set it aside. On September 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (No. 26-1212) largely affirmed that judgment. It kept the parts that read the law to require DHS to give class members effective notice of the specific third country and a meaningful opportunity to raise a fear of persecution or torture there. It threw out, for lack of standing, the parts about which country DHS must try first.
Then the government went to the Supreme Court. On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a stay (No. 26A406) of the district court's February 25, 2026 order and judgment, and the stay ends when the Supreme Court issues its own judgment. The Court also agreed to decide the case itself (No. 26-426) and set argument for Wednesday, December 9, 2026. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would have denied the stay.
Who this is about
The class in this case, as the district court defined it, is people who have a final removal order from certain immigration proceedings and whom DHS has deported or will deport on or after February 18, 2025, to a country that was not designated in their case and not identified in writing as a country of removal.
The court papers do not say how many people that is, which countries are involved today, or how any one person's case will go. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the Guidance is lawful. It has only paused the lower court's judgment while it decides.
What it does not mean
- It does not mean the appeals court ruling is in effect right now. The Supreme Court stayed the underlying judgment on September 29, 2026, until it decides the case.
- It does not mean the Supreme Court has decided the case. Argument is set for December 9, 2026; the stay order itself gives no reasons.
- It does not mean everyone with a removal order will be sent to a third country. The case is about a DHS policy for when DHS chooses to do that, not a rule that it will.
- It does not mean the rules are settled. What is written here is the state of the court dockets as of October 18, 2026, and it may change after the Supreme Court rules.
What to do with this
Whether this case touches a particular person's situation depends on the details of their own removal order and history, and that is a question only a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative can answer. The organizations below are a place to start. Advocasí helps prepare paperwork once a qualified advisor has said which path applies.
Advocasí is not a law firm. We explain what a policy says and help people prepare their own paperwork once a qualified advisor has told them which path applies.