DHS v. D.V.D., 24A1153

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted a policy to expedite the removal of noncitizens to third countries without sufficient notice or opportunity to assert claims under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Plaintiffs, including O.C.G. (initially removed to Guatemala in violation of an Immigration Judge’s order), filed a class action under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging due process violations and failure to comply with CAT implementing regulations.
The District Court in Massachusetts entered a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction, requiring written notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise CAT claims before third-country removal.
DHS violated these orders by deporting several class members to countries like El Salvador and South Sudan with little or no notice and without providing opportunity for relief claims.
The Government requested a stay of the preliminary injunction, which was denied by the District Court and the First Circuit. The Supreme Court granted the stay pending appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Notice and Opportunity Under CAT	Noncitizens are entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to assert CAT claims before third-country removal.	The Executive's process is sufficient, and the court cannot require more than the statute/regulations demand.	Stay granted: injunction paused pending appeal.
Court’s Authority to Grant Classwide Injunctive Relief	Courts can enjoin DHS policies that deprive classes of statutorily and constitutionally protected procedures.	Jurisdiction-stripping (8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1)) bars classwide relief against the operation of certain immigration provisions.	Stay granted, leaving classwide injunction in limbo pending appeal.
Due Process Right to Notice and Hearing in Third-Country Removal	Due process attaches to statutory protections against removal to torture; summary removal without process violates constitutional rights.	Due process does not bar summary removal in the manner executed; statutory process is all that is due.	Stay granted, leaving policy in effect pending appeal.
Equitable Relief When Government Flouts Court Orders	Relief should be denied when the government fails to comply with existing injunctions; equitable remedies require clean hands.	Government faces irreparable harm if injunction stands; harm to plaintiffs is not as grave.	Stay granted despite alleged government noncompliance.

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 463 U.S. 1315 (extraordinary circumstances required for stay pending appeal)
Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (obligation to comply with court orders until reversed)
Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4 (stays are discretionary equitable remedies)
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (scope of immigration laws limiting classwide relief)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (right to notice and opportunity to be heard under due process)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural due process applies to statutory entitlements)
Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543 (collateral impact of injunctions on operation of immigration statutes)
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (executive authority and judicial review in removal/transfer decisions)