Decisions

U.S. September 29, 2026 Third country: Third countries generally. The class challenged the government’s guidance on third-country removals.

The Court granted the government’s application and stayed “The February 25, 2026 order and judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 1:25-cv-10676.” It treated the application as a petition for certiorari, granted it, and directed the parties to brief and argue: “(1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Respondents’ claims. (2) Whether the district court had authority to enter classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U. S. C. §1252(f)(1). (3) Whether the Government’s Guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U. S. C. §1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations. (4) Such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case.” The order states: “The stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.” It gives no reasons. The record before the Court included sworn declarations of class members, cited in the class’s opposition, describing chain refoulement from third countries. One is the declaration of an Iranian man holding withholding of removal, flown by ICE to Nicaragua in October 2025 and put on a flight to Tehran through Venezuela, who escaped in transit in Istanbul (district court ECF 233-18). The government’s application and reply do not mention that declaration.

D.V.D. class action Third-country removal Notice Section 1252(f)(1) Class relief Jurisdiction CAT Withholding of removal Stay pending appeal Chain refoulement

Caution An order granting a stay and certiorari, without reasons. It decides nothing on the merits; the questions are to be argued on 9 December 2026. According to the parties’ Supreme Court filings, the First Circuit had largely affirmed the district court’s judgment on 18 September 2026 (No. 26-1212) and dissolved its own stay pending appeal on 23 September 2026. The earlier stay of the April 2025 injunction, of 23 June 2025, is registered separately.

1st Cir. March 16, 2026

The court granted the government’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s 25 February 2026 judgment setting aside the third-country removal policy, so that the judgment does not take effect while the appeal proceeds. Judge Montecalvo would have denied the stay. The order sets an expedited briefing schedule and directs the parties to address two questions: the significance of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) for the government’s contention that the district court lacked authority to set aside the March 2025 guidance, and whether the appeal as to class members ineligible for statutory withholding under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) can be resolved without reaching procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. The court stated it intends to hold oral argument soon after briefing.

Notice Third-country designation Class relief Jurisdiction Stay pending appeal

Caution A stay order, not a decision on the merits. It leaves the district court’s reasoning intact but unenforceable while the appeal is pending. The appeal remained live as of 1 September 2026, when the appellees filed a citation of supplemental authorities under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). The First Circuit dissolved this stay on 23 September 2026, after largely affirming the judgment on 18 September 2026. The Supreme Court then stayed the judgment on 29 September 2026.

D. Mass. February 25, 2026 2026 WL 521557

Granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Counts I and IV, dissolving the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction, and dismissing Counts II, III, V and VI, the court declared the third-country removal policy unlawful and set it aside. The policy is identified as DHS’s memorandum of 30 March 2025, “Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals,” and ICE’s memorandum of 9 July 2025 issued after the Supreme Court’s stay. The court also declared that 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(d) and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) require the government to seek removal to a class member’s designated country, alternative country, or country of citizenship before effecting removal to a third country, and that class members have the right to meaningful notice before removal to any third country and to a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim before it. The opinion opens: “This case is about whether the Government may, without notice, deport a person to the wrong country, or a country where he is likely to be persecuted, or tortured, thereby depriving that person of the opportunity to seek protections to which he would be undisputedly entitled.” On the assurances the policy relies on: “nobody really knows anything about these purported ‘assurances.’ Whom do they cover? What do they cover? Why has the Government deemed them credible? How can anyone even know for certain that they exist?”

Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Class relief Diplomatic assurances Statutory sequence

Caution The judgment was stayed by its own terms “until fifteen days from date of issuance or until the First Circuit rules on any motion for an administrative stay or stay pending appeal, whichever occurs first.” The First Circuit granted the government a stay pending appeal on 16 March 2026, over the dissent of Judge Montecalvo; that order is registered separately. The class is defined in the judgment as those with a final removal order under INA sections 240, 241(a)(5) or 238(b), including withholding-only proceedings, whom DHS has deported or will deport on or after 18 February 2025 to a country not previously designated and not identified in writing in the prior proceedings. The First Circuit largely affirmed the judgment on 18 September 2026 (No. 26-1212) and dissolved its stay pending appeal on 23 September 2026. On 29 September 2026 the Supreme Court stayed the order and judgment and granted certiorari (No. 26-426), with argument set for December 2026; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would have denied the stay. That order is registered separately.

D. Mass. August 28, 2025 Investigating. No reporter citation established.

Granting the plaintiffs' motion under Rule 62.1, the court stated that it would dissolve its April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction if the First Circuit remanded the appeal for that purpose.

Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Class relief

Caution An interlocutory indicative ruling that does not itself dissolve the injunction; whether the First Circuit remanded, and whether the injunction was later dissolved, is not stated in the file; the disposition fits none of the listed categories, so 'Other' is used.

U.S. July 3, 2025 606 U.S. ___ (2025); 145 S. Ct. 2627

After the Supreme Court stayed the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction, the district court held that its May 21, 2025 remedial order, which directed procedures for six class members already removed in violation of the injunction, remained in full force. On the government's motion the Supreme Court held otherwise: “The motion for clarification is granted. Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”

Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Class relief Remedy

Caution Justice Kagan concurred, having voted against the stay: “I voted to deny the Government's previous stay application in this case, and I continue to believe that this Court should not have stayed the District Court's April 18 order enjoining the Government from deporting non-citizens to third countries without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. But a majority of this Court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.” Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Jackson. This order resolves what an earlier register entry recorded as an unregistered further opinion at 145 S. Ct. 2627.

U.S. June 23, 2025 606 U.S. ___ (2025); 145 S. Ct. 2153

On the government's application, the Supreme Court stayed the district court's classwide preliminary injunction pending appeal, removing the protection the class had been granted below. The order gives no reasons: “The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is granted. The April 18, 2025, preliminary injunction of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 25-cv-10676, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.”

Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Class relief

Caution Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson. The stay terminates automatically if certiorari is denied, and on the sending down of the judgment if it is granted. A further order of 3 July 2025 on the government's motion for clarification is registered separately.

D. Mass. April 18, 2025 778 F. Supp. 3d 355; 2025 WL 1142968

The court certified a class and preliminarily enjoined the government from removing class members to third countries without notice and a meaningful opportunity to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Class relief

Caution Not read directly; described in later opinions. The injunction was stayed by the Supreme Court on June 23, 2025, and on August 28, 2025 the issuing court stated it would dissolve it if the First Circuit remanded. The briefs do not name the judge for this order and do not print the class definition in full.

U.S. June 13, 2022 596 U.S. 543 (2022) Third country: None. The question was detention authority and the scope of relief, not destination.

The respondents had been detained under section 1231(a)(6) while they sought withholding of removal after their earlier removal orders were reinstated. In two class actions, district courts in California and Washington ordered bond hearings for the class members after six months of detention; the Northern District of California “enjoined [the Government] from detaining [respondents] and the class members pursuant to section 1231(a)(6) for more than 180 days without providing each a bond hearing.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed both. The Supreme Court reversed on a threshold question. It held that section 1252(f)(1) “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions,” with one exception: lower courts retain authority to “enjoin or restrain the operation of” those provisions “with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.” The Court concluded: “It is sufficient to hold that the classwide injunctive relief awarded in these cases was unlawful.” The opinion refers to the companion case decided the same day, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, for the detention authority under section 1231(a)(6).

Section 1252(f)(1) Class relief Bond hearing Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Withholding-only proceedings Reinstated removal orders Detention pending removal

Caution The Court decided only the availability of class-wide injunctive relief. It did not decide whether people detained under section 1231(a)(6) are entitled to bond hearings, and it left individual relief untouched by its own terms. The Court also said it had no occasion to decide whether section 1252(f)(1) reaches declaratory relief. The text read is the slip opinion, which is subject to formal revision.