D.V.D. v. DHS: A Class Action Against Removal Without Notice or Screening
- Citation
- D.V.D. v. DHS, No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.); 2026 WL 521557 (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2026) (Murphy, J.); 1st Cir. stay pending appeal granted March 2026
- Court
- U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
- Judge
- Hon. Brian E. Murphy
- Statute
- Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706; INA §§ 240, 241(a)(5), 238(b); CAT regulations; Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
- Holding
- Third-country removal policy declared unlawful and set aside under APA; class members entitled to written notice and meaningful opportunity to raise CAT-based fear before any third-country removal; First Circuit stayed judgment pending appeal.
The February 18, 2025 ICE detention directive instructed officers to treat noncitizens with grants of withholding of removal or CAT protection as eligible for removal to a country other than the one as to which protection had been granted. The directive was issued without notice, without rulemaking, without explanation, and without procedural safeguards. The class action that followed, D.V.D. v. DHS, is the structural challenge to that policy.
The procedural architecture
The case was filed by four anonymous noncitizen plaintiffs from Central America, all of whom had been granted some form of country-specific protection and all of whom faced removal under the new directive to countries with which they had no connection and as to which no protection determination had been made. Judge Brian E. Murphy of the District of Massachusetts entered a TRO on March 28, 2025; certified a nationwide class on April 18, 2025; and granted a preliminary injunction the same day. The PI required written notice to noncitizen and counsel in a language the noncitizen understood, and a meaningful opportunity to raise CAT-based fear of torture in the proposed receiving country.
The PI was almost immediately tested. On May 19-20, 2025, ICE placed six noncitizens on a flight bound for South Sudan with less than twenty-four hours’ notice. Judge Murphy ruled that DHS had “unquestionably” violated the PI; the flight was diverted to Djibouti. Eight men were eventually held at Camp Lemonnier under U.S. military control while CAT screening proceeded. The case proceeded to merits.
The February 25, 2026 ruling
The court’s final merits ruling declares the third-country removal policy unlawful and sets it aside under the APA. The opinion finds that the February 2025 directive was a substantive rule promulgated without notice and comment; that it was inconsistent with the INA’s removal provisions, which the court read to require the government to first seek removal to the country of designation or citizenship; and that, separately, due process required meaningful opportunity to raise country-specific fear before any third-country removal occurred.
“The Government may not, by an unwritten directive, transfer a person to a country where torture is more likely than not, and call the transfer a removal.”
The court stayed entry of judgment for fifteen days to permit the government to seek appellate review. The First Circuit (Howard, Aframe; Montecalvo dissenting) granted the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal in March 2026. The merits appeal remains pending.
Significance
D.V.D. is the most ambitious systemic challenge to the post-2025 removal architecture. Its February 2026 merits ruling is the first definitive Article III determination that the policy violates both the APA and the Due Process Clause. The First Circuit’s stay does not vacate the underlying analysis; it merely postpones operational effect pending appellate review.
For practitioners, the case’s most important practical contribution may be the procedural framework Judge Murphy worked out in the preliminary-injunction phase: written notice, language access, attorney notification, screening procedure. Even where the government disputes the substantive holding, the procedural template D.V.D. developed has been adopted by other district courts and reflects what most observers regard as the constitutional minimum for any third-country removal regime.
Filed under Third-Country Removal. Published February 25, 2026 (final merits ruling).