What is the Supreme Court case DHS v. D.V.D.?

Department of Homeland Security v. D. V. D., No. 26-426, is a Supreme Court case about whether the federal government's guidance on third-country removals is lawful, and the Court's docket shows it is set for argument on Wednesday, December 9, 2026. The court of appeals opinion under review uses "third-country removals" for removals of noncitizens with final removal orders to countries that were neither designated in those orders nor identified in writing during their earlier removal proceedings.

What the Court will decide

The Court's question presented document reproduces the order of September 29, 2026, which 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 government said in its opening brief that it had determined that no additional questions warrant briefing, which leaves the first three.

Key dates

The dates below are from the docket.

The Court's calendar for the session beginning November 30, 2026 lists the case first on Wednesday, December 9, and says the Court convenes at 10 a.m. The other arguments scheduled so far are in What cases is the Supreme Court hearing this term?

How the case reached the Court

The First Circuit opinion of September 18, 2026, which begins at page 99a of the appendix to the stay application, says the Department of Homeland Security appealed a final judgment in favor of a class of noncitizens with final removal orders who face third-country removals under department policy documents issued in March and July of 2025. The opinion calls those documents "the Guidance."

According to that opinion, the district court's judgment contained five declarations and also vacated and set aside the Guidance as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The declarations construed the law to require the department to seek first to remove class members to countries they had designated or of which they are subjects, nationals or citizens, to give class members effective notice of the third country, and to give them a meaningful opportunity to contest removal there on the ground of a reasonable fear of persecution or torture.

The court of appeals held that the representative plaintiffs lacked standing for the first of those requirements and vacated the two declarations about it. "Otherwise, we affirm the judgment," the opinion says.

The government then applied to the Supreme Court for a stay. The docket shows that on September 29, 2026, the Court granted the application, stayed the February 25, 2026 order and judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari and granted it. The order directed the Clerk to set a briefing schedule that would allow argument in the December 2026 session, and it says the stay ends when the Court sends down its judgment. The docket entry records that Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson would have denied the application for a stay.

What each side says

The government's opening brief, filed October 23, 2026, makes three arguments in the order of the Court's questions. It says the district court lacked jurisdiction over the respondents' claims under 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(9) and provisions that limit review of claims under the Convention Against Torture. It says 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1) bars the classwide declaratory relief and the vacatur. And it says the Guidance is lawful because neither Section 1231 nor FARRA sets out specific procedures for third-country removals, and that the Guidance comports with due process.

The respondents' merits brief is not due until November 16, so their position on the record so far is in their September 28 response to the stay application. There they said the final judgment did not include injunctive relief, so Section 1252(f)(1) does not apply, and that the jurisdictional provisions the government cites do not bar review because the plaintiffs do not challenge their removal orders or any discretionary decision to execute them. They said the policy cannot be reconciled with 8 U.S.C. 1231(b), FARRA and their implementing regulations, and that it permits removal to a newly selected third country "without meaningful notice of the destination or a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific fear claim."

This page will be updated at this address when the respondents' brief is filed and after the argument on December 9.