The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a significant new order involving third-country removals, an immigration practice that can result in a noncitizen being removed from the United States to a country other than the country originally contemplated in the person’s removal proceedings.
On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the federal government’s request to stay a lower court judgment in D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security. The Court also agreed to hear the case, setting up a major dispute over the procedures and legal protections that apply when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeks to remove certain noncitizens to third countries.
The case is particularly important for individuals with final orders of removal who may fear persecution or torture in a country where DHS seeks to send them.
What Is a Third-Country Removal?
A third-country removal generally refers to the removal of a noncitizen to a country other than the country originally designated or otherwise associated with the person’s removal.
The litigation in D.V.D. v. DHS arose after plaintiffs challenged DHS policies governing removals to such countries. The case involves important questions about what notice and opportunity individuals must receive to raise concerns about persecution or torture before being removed to another country.
What Happened in D.V.D. v. DHS?
The case began in 2025 as a nationwide class action challenging DHS’s approach to third-country removals.
Among the central issues was whether people facing removal to a third country must receive sufficient notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise a fear-based claim before removal.
Earlier proceedings resulted in protections requiring certain class members to receive notice and an opportunity to raise claims involving potential persecution or torture.
On September 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued another major decision in the case.
The First Circuit vacated portions of the lower court’s judgment concerning the sequence of countries DHS must consider for removal because the representative plaintiffs lacked standing on that claim. However, it otherwise affirmed the lower court’s judgment, including its treatment of DHS’s third-country-removal guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act.
AILA subsequently described the decision as largely affirming the vacatur of DHS’s third-country-removal policy while modifying the judgment concerning the sequencing of potential countries of removal.
What Did the Supreme Court Do on September 29?
The federal government asked the Supreme Court to stay the lower court’s February 25, 2026 judgment.
On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted that request.
The Court stayed the February judgment while the litigation continues and also treated the government’s application as a petition for certiorari and agreed to hear the case.
This is important: the Supreme Court has not yet issued its final decision on whether DHS’s third-country-removal guidance is lawful.
Instead, the Court has temporarily stayed the lower court judgment while it considers the underlying legal questions.
What Will the Supreme Court Decide?
The Supreme Court directed the parties to address several significant questions, including:
- Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims.
- Whether the district court had authority to issue classwide declaratory relief and vacate the DHS guidance.
- Whether the government’s third-country-removal guidance violates federal immigration law.
- Whether the guidance violates the Due Process Clause.
- Whether it conflicts with protections involving the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and related federal law and regulations.
The Supreme Court directed that the case be briefed in time for argument during its December 2026 argument session.
Why Do Third-Country Removals Matter?
For someone with a final removal order, the country of removal can have serious consequences.
A person may fear persecution or torture in a country where DHS seeks to send them, even if that country was not the primary country discussed during their original immigration proceedings.
U.S. law implements protections associated with the Convention Against Torture, and the procedures available to people who claim they would face torture in a proposed country of removal are among the central issues being litigated in D.V.D.
What Should Individuals Facing Removal Know?
The law surrounding third-country removals is currently developing rapidly.
Anyone who learns that DHS intends to remove them to a country where they fear persecution or torture should consider obtaining legal advice as quickly as possible.
Depending on the circumstances, important questions may include the person’s existing removal order, prior immigration proceedings, the proposed country of removal, previous fear-based claims, and whether additional legal protections or emergency court action may be available.
The Case Is Not Over
The Supreme Court’s September 29 order is not a final ruling on the legality of DHS’s third-country-removal policy.
The Court has agreed to hear the case and will consider major questions concerning DHS’s authority, due process, federal immigration law, and protections against removal to countries where an individual alleges a risk of torture.
Because this area of immigration law is changing quickly, individuals who may be affected should closely monitor their cases and seek individualized legal advice.
📞 Contact the Law Firm of Anna Korneeva at (513) 334-3008 to discuss your immigration situation and possible legal options.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Naturalization law is highly fact-specific, and USCIS investigations, good moral character requirements, and citizenship eligibility can involve complex legal issues. You should consult a qualified immigration attorney before making decisions about your naturalization case.
Article Based On: U.S. Supreme Court – Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26A406 / No. 26-426
