ProjectsThird-Country Removals

Court Decisions

The register organized by the question each court answered rather than by date, so a reader looking for the law on one point can find every decision on it, including the ones that came out the other way.

The register holds every court decision the Coalition has read, in the order the courts handed them down. That is the right order for a record and the wrong order for a search. A person arriving with a question, whether a court has ever required notice before a removal to a country the person has no connection to, does not want a chronology. He wants the decisions on that question, and he wants to see whether the courts agree.

This page is the other way in. Every record in the register is tagged with the questions it answers, and those tags are turned into the index below. Each category opens the register filtered to that question, so what appears is every decision the Coalition has read on it, including the ones that came out the other way.

What a record contains

The court and the date. The docket number and the citation, where the source supplied them. What the court decided, stated as a disposition rather than as a characterization. A one-sentence statement of the holding. And a link to the court’s own text, so that nobody has to take the Coalition’s summary on trust.

Where a source did not supply a detail, the field is left empty rather than filled with a guess. An empty field is a smaller problem than a confident error, and it is visible, which a confident error is not.

Three cautions about using it

A holding summary is not the opinion. One sentence cannot carry the reasoning, the facts it depended on, or the limits the court placed on it. The summary exists to help a reader decide which opinion to open. It is not a substitute for opening it.

A decision is only law where it is law. A ruling from one district court binds nobody, a court of appeals decision binds the district courts in its circuit, and a circuit that has not addressed a question is not bound by another circuit that has. The register records what each court said. It does not record what any of it means for a particular case in a particular place.

The law moves. A decision in this register was good law when it was read. It may have been stayed, reversed, vacated, or overtaken since. Anyone relying on an entry for a live matter should check its current status in the court’s own records before doing so.

Nothing here is legal advice, and reading it is not a substitute for a lawyer.

How this connects to the rest of the site

Decisions are the evidence the other projects rest on, which is why they are gathered here instead of being scattered through them. A country guide describes what happens to people sent to a particular place; the decisions about those removals are in this register. The diplomatic assurances project explains a doctrine; the cases that made the doctrine are in this register. Every project links into the categories that carry its case law, and this page links back to the projects, so a reader can move between the question and the subject in either direction.

By the question the court answered

Access to counsel 3 decisions Appeal pending 1 decision Arrest at a courthouse 1 decision Asylum 1 decision Attorney fees 2 decisions Bilateral repatriation agreement 1 decision Bond hearing 17 decisions Burden of proof 5 decisions CAT 16 decisions CAT deferral 21 decisions Chain refoulement 4 decisions Changed circumstances 4 decisions Class action 3 decisions Class certification 1 decision Class relief 6 decisions Class-wide injunctive relief 1 decision Compliance with regulations 6 decisions Conditions of detention 3 decisions Contrary authority 2 decisions Convention Against Torture 1 decision Country-specific nature of withholding 2 decisions Credible fear 1 decision Custody hearing 7 decisions D.V.D. class action 3 decisions Damages 1 decision Delay in travel documents 1 decision Detention authority 1 decision Detention pending removal 1 decision Diplomatic assurances 15 decisions Due process 30 decisions Effect of the Supreme Court stay 1 decision Evidence of destination conditions 1 decision Expedited removal 1 decision Federal Tort Claims Act 1 decision Federal control 1 decision Fifth Amendment 1 decision Fifth Amendment due process 2 decisions Final agency action 1 decision First Amendment 2 decisions Government silence on the merits 1 decision Habeas 1 decision Habeas corpus 1 decision Habeas jurisdiction 4 decisions ICE policy of 9 July 2025 3 decisions Immigration court jurisdiction 1 decision Impartial adjudicator 1 decision Incommunicado detention 1 decision Infamous punishment 1 decision Informal interview 8 decisions Injunctions against immigration enforcement 1 decision Judicial review 1 decision Jurisdiction 10 decisions Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) 3 decisions Jurisdiction 1252(b)(9) 3 decisions Jurisdiction 1252(g) 10 decisions Jurisdiction stripping 1 decision Liberty interest 1 decision Long-dormant removal orders 1 decision Mandatory detention 1225(b) 6 decisions Manner of removal 1 decision Mass redetention 1 decision Meaningful opportunity 2 decisions Monitored telephone calls 1 decision Mootness 1 decision Motions to reopen 1 decision National Environmental Policy Act 1 decision Neutral decisionmaker 1 decision Notice 67 decisions Notice and hearing 1 decision Onward transfer 2 decisions Order of supervision 13 decisions Petition for review 1 decision Political persecution 1 decision Political question 1 decision Pre-deprivation hearing 4 decisions Preliminary injunction 2 decisions Preliminary injunction vacated 1 decision Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) 39 decisions REAL ID Act section 1252(a)(4) 1 decision Reasonable fear 4 decisions Redetention 59 decisions Redetention at a reporting appointment 1 decision Reinstated removal orders 1 decision Reinstatement of supervision conditions 1 decision Release from custody 1 decision Remand to the BIA 2 decisions Remedy 2 decisions Reopened removal proceedings 7 decisions Restraint during transfer 1 decision Revocation 2 decisions Revocation of supervision 3 decisions Ripeness 4 decisions Rule 8(b)(6) admission 1 decision Rule of non-inquiry 1 decision Section 1226 and section 1231 1 decision Section 1231(a)(6) 1 decision Section 1252(f)(1) 2 decisions Section 1252(g) 1 decision Self-represented petitioner 2 decisions Solitary confinement 1 decision Standing 2 decisions Statutory sequence 1 decision Stay of removal 1 decision Stay pending appeal 1 decision Suspension Clause 2 decisions Termination of deferral 1 decision Termination without notice 3 decisions Third-country designation 46 decisions Third-country removal 14 decisions Transfer 1 decision Transfer of detainees 1 decision Transfer out of district 4 decisions Travel documents 1 decision Unconstitutional punishment 9 decisions Venue 1 decision Withholding of removal 28 decisions Withholding-only proceedings 1 decision Wong Wing 6 decisions

A decision that answers more than one question appears under each of them, so these figures add up to more than the number of decisions in the register. Open the whole register in date order.

The subjects these decisions belong to

  • Third-Country Removals The removal of people who hold protection under the Convention Against Torture to countries other than their own: what the law permits, what it prohibits, what the record shows, and where the sources are.
  • Transit and Temporary Recipients States that agreed to take, or have taken, people removed from the United States who are not their nationals. What a person actually finds on arrival: whether transfers there are established, whether people were detained, what status they were given and for how long, whether anyone has been removed onward, and who can be reached inside the country.
  • Diplomatic Assurances A promise by one government to another that a particular person will not be tortured after he is handed over. What the law requires before one may be relied on, what the courts have held, and why serious people disagree about whether the practice can be made safe.
  • Punitive Third-Country Removals A third-country removal can be lawful. This project is about what has been added to it: how people are moved, what has been waiting for them on arrival, and what United States courts have done when they were shown the answer.
  • States Engaging in Refoulement States documented breaching the prohibition on return through their own conduct rather than by receiving people others sent: sending people into danger, pushing them back at a border, or removing them in disregard of the prohibition. Judged by exactly the same test as every other state on this site.
  • Countries Named in Protection Orders Countries a court has found it unsafe to return a particular person to. Membership is set by the Coalition's own register of court decisions, not by any assessment of danger. Protection is granted to a person, never to a nationality.