D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security

D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security is a 2025 class action brought by a Cuban immigrant, with the court authorized pseudonym of D.V.D., and three other immigrant plaintiffs seeking to prevent their deportation to a country other than their country of origin, without first being given the opportunity to challenge the deportation on the basis that they might face serious harm in that other country. The deportation was planned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The hearing took place in the United State District court for the District of Massachusetts with Judge Brian E. Murphy.

The court documents state the case asks the following question:^[1]

Before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?

The wording of the case continues with the following statement:^[1]

Defendants argue that the United States may send a deportable alien to a country not of their origin, not where an immigration judge has ordered, where they may be immediately tortured and killed, without providing that person any opportunity to tell the deporting authorities that they face grave danger or death because of such a deportation.

At the time of this court case, all nine justices of the Supreme Court had agreed in Trump v. J.G.G. that immigrants must be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation.

Eight migrants were deported to South Sudan but were rerouted to Djibouti and were held "in a conference room in a converted Conex shipping container at Camp Lemonnier" with temperatures exceeding 100 °F (38 °C). Additional concerns were raised over exposure to Malaria and close proximity to burn pits. "ICE officers and detainees complained of feeling ill within three days of their arrival to the base".^[2][3]

During the hearing before Murphy, DHS conducted a press conference titled DHS Press Conference on Migrant Flight to South Sudan during which a spokesperson claimed that they were confirming the fact that that's not their final destination after being asked, "Is the department then confirming that this flight is going to South Sudan?".^[4][5]

The case led to the following cases:

U.S. Supreme Court determined in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (June 23, 2025) that the preliminary injunction (preliminary legal order to stop the specific action) from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts was stayed (temporarily halted). The case describes the law as describing deportation to a third country as action of last resort. However, non-citizens are allowed to raise a claim under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The U.S. is part of the United Nation Convention. In 1998, Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, which states that:^[6]

It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (on motion for clarification) July 3, 2025, ruling starts with the following:^[7]

On April 18, 2025, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government from removing “any alien” to a “country not explicitly provided for on the alien’s order of removal” without following certain procedures designed to enable the alien to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).^[a]

After the Supreme Court had issued an injunction in the April 28 case, the District Court issued an “order on remedy” on May 21. The order directs the Government to follow specified procedures with respect to those individuals, tailored to the circumstances. The majority of the Supreme Court has ruled that such an order was not possible.^[7]

The result of the July 3 Supreme Court ruling was that eight men who were in the class action case were allowed to be deported to war torn South Sudan, a country only one of the participants of the class action case had any relation to.

Jennie Pasquarella, a attorney with the Seattle Clemency Project, represented the migrants with last minute emergency motions to deny the deportation. On the evening of the July 3 Supreme Court clarification that the migrants could be deported and that District Court order was lifted, a new claim was filed by the attorney in Washington, D.C.. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss paused the deportation on the afternoon of the July 4. Due to recent Supreme Court decisions on jurisdiction, he was required to forward the case back to Boston, where the case had originally been heard.^[8]

A final hearing was held on July 4, 2025, with the judge from the original United State District court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Brian Murphy. However, the judge ruled that the July 3 Supreme Court ruling rendered his court powerless to stop the deportation because the majority of the justices had lifted the U.S. District Court judge's order blocking the deportation. Both hearings were held on Independence Day, which is a national holiday. However, the court hearings were held that day due to the deportation being scheduled for that evening.^[9][10][8]

Amidst the July 4 hearings, a Justice Department attorney read a statement from the South Sudanese government on how the migrants will be given temporary immigration status. According to reporting by the New York Times, the U.S. government has claimed in its own filings that the South Sudanese government has given diplomatic assurances that will not be subjected to torture while the 8 men are in their country.^[11] On the evening of July 4, the eight men arrived in South Sudan by a U.S. government flight.^[12]

• Legal affairs of the second Donald Trump presidency
• Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration
  • Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump