Case Information
*1 Case 1:25-cv-10676-BEM Document 119 Filed 05/21/25 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS _______________________________________
)
D.V.D., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Civil Action No. v. ) 25-10676-BEM )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )
SECURITY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
ORDER ON REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
MURPHY, J.
As set forth in today’s hearing and at Dkt. 118, the Court found that Defendants violated the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. Having considered the arguments of counsel, the Court ORDERS the following remedy for Defendants’ violations of the Preliminary Injunction:
Each of the six individuals must be given a reasonable fear interview in private, with the opportunity for the individual to have counsel of their choosing present during the interview, either in-person or remotely, at the individual’s choosing. Each individual must be afforded access to counsel that is commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures occurred within the United States prior to their deportation, including remote access where in-person access would otherwise be available. Each individual must also be afforded the name and telephone number of class counsel, as well as access to a phone, interpreter, and technology for the confidential transfer of documents that is commensurate with the access they would receive were they in DHS custody within United States borders.
Each individual, along with class counsel, must be given no fewer than 72-hours’ notice of the scheduled time for each reasonable fear interview. Should any individual raise a fear with
Case 1:25-cv-10676-BEM Document 119 Filed 05/21/25 Page 2 of 2 respect to deportation to the third country that DHS determines falls short of “reasonable fear,” the individual must be provided meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of 15 days, to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal. During that 15-day period, the individual must remain within the custody or control of DHS, and must be afforded access to counsel that is commensurate with the access they would be afforded if they were seeking to move to reopen from within the United States’ borders. Defendants must provide status reports every seven days as to all six individuals. Should any individual move to reopen, the parties must also immediately provide a status report, and continue providing status reports every seven days thereafter, on the status of the motion to reopen.
DHS, in its discretion, may elect to provide this process to the six individuals either within the United States—should it choose to return them to the United States—or abroad, if at all relevant times DHS retains custody and control over the individuals in conditions commensurate to those the individuals would be housed in were they still in DHS’s custody within the United States.
This Order reflects a remedy, in light of the Court’s finding of a violation of its Preliminary Injunction, that has been narrowly tailored in accordance with principles of equity. The Court cautions Defendants that this remedy should not be construed as setting forth a course of conduct that would constitute compliance with the Preliminary Injunction, and the Court is not—in ordering this remedy—making any findings or conclusions that compliance with these processes before deportation would have satisfied the requirements of its Preliminary Injunction in the first instance.
So Ordered.
/s/ Brian E. Murphy Brian E. Murphy Dated: May 21, 2025 Judge, United States District Court
2