Filed Date: March 23, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This class action challenges Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deportations of noncitizens to countries that are not their designated country of removal, without first providing an opportunity for the noncitizen to demonstrate fear of persecution, torture, and even death in the chosen third country.
Four anonymous class plaintiffs, all noncitizens from Central America currently residing in Massachusetts, filed this lawsuit on March 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They named the DHS and its Secretary, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Superintendent of Plymouth County Correctional Facility. They alleged that the Trump Administration's new third-country deportation practices violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case was assigned to District Judge Brian E. Murphy.
Simultaneously with their complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, seeking to enjoin third-country removals unless the individual receives written notice of the third country and opportunity to present their fear-based claim, and to stay the re-detention directive. And they filed another simultaneous motion to certify class. Specifically, Plaintiffs moved to certify the following class:
"all individuals who have a final removal order issued in proceedings under Section 240, 241(a)(5), or 238(b) of the INA (including withholding-only proceedings) whom DHS has deported or will deport on or after February 18, 2025, to a country (a) not previously designated as the country or alternative country of removal, and (b) not identified in writing in the prior proceedings as a country to which the individual would be removed."
After hearing oral argument, on March 28, the court granted the temporary restraining order covering noncitizens with a final order of removal. 2025 WL 942948. The order barred deportation of any such person to a third country (that is, a country other than the country designated in immigration proceedings), "UNLESS and UNTIL Defendants provide that individual, and their respective immigration counsel, if any, with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed, and UNTIL Defendants provide a meaningful opportunity for that individual to submit an application for CAT [Convention Against Torture] protection to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL that individual receives a final agency decision on any such application." The order was set to remain in place until resolution of Plaintiffs' requested preliminary injunction.
The government immediately appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit (docket no. 25-1311), and requested a stay; that court denied a stay on April 7, 2025, because of its concern that temporary restraining orders are not appealable. 2025 WL 1029774.
In the weeks following the TRO, the government admitted to deporting several noncitizens to third countries almost immediately after the court's ruling. On March 31—just two days after the TRO was issued—at least four Venezuelan men with final removal orders to Venezuela were removed to El Salvador with little or no warning. The government asserted that these removals were lawful because the Department of Defense, not DHS, conducted the flights from Guantanamo Bay, where the individuals had been transferred by DHS. The Justice Department argued that because the Defense Department was not a party to the case, it was not bound by Judge Murphy’s orders. Judge Murphy expressed skepticism of the government's position, questioning how the Defense Department would undertake such deportations independently or how DHS could have transferred detainees to Guantanamo without Defense Department coordination.
Back in the district court, on April 18, 2025, Judge Murphy granted a preliminary injunction, requiring that all third-country removals be preceded by written notice to both the non-citizen and the non-citizens’ counsel in a language the non-citizen can understand as well as a meaningful opportunity for the non-citizen to raise a fear-based claim for CAT protection. 2025 WL 1142968. It also specified that the Department of Homeland Security may not evade the injunction by ceding control over non-citizens or the enforcement of its immigration responsibilities to any other agency, including but not limited to the Department of Defense.
The government filed another immediate appeal (docket no. 25-1393) and again requested a stay, which was denied May 26, 2025. 2025 WL 1495517.
In the district court, after widespread reports that the U.S. was looking to remove individuals to Libya and elsewhere, on May 7, Plaintiffs sought an emergency district court order preventing such removals, absent compliance with the preliminary injunction. Judge Murphy issued an order that same day:
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this motion should not be required, as the relief sought is already provided by the Preliminary Injunction entered in this case, Dkts. 64, 86. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion as one for clarification. . . . If there is any doubt—the Court sees none—the allegedly imminent removals, as reported by news agencies and as Plaintiffs seek to corroborate with class-member accounts and public information, would clearly violate this Court’s Order. 2025 WL 1323697.
Attempted deportations to Libya followed shortly thereafter. Reports indicated that DHS planned to transfer noncitizens to Libya, a country known for widespread human rights abuses against migrants, including torture and enslavement as documented by the United Nations. This time, the government handed class members over to the Defense Department on the U.S. mainland (from the South Texas ICE Processing Center in San Antonio to Lackland Air Force Base) for planned deportations to Libya. Counsel for the affected individuals revealed that on May 5, their clients were informed via an English-only document that they would be removed to Libya–and were not told they had an opportunity to express fear of torture. They were transported by bus to Lackland but never boarded a plane; the trip was aborted, and the individuals were returned to the ICE facility several hours later.
Judge Murphy quickly issued an order reiterating that any imminent removals to third countries without notice and opportunity to claim CAT protections would violate the court’s injunction. He also ordered briefing on whether the Defense Department should be joined as a party to the case. Meanwhile, it remained unclear whether the Trump administration had coordinated with any Libyan authority regarding these planned deportations, with Libyan officials denying any agreement.
Subsequent litigation concerned three issues: (1) whether the Department of Defense should be joined as a defendant, (2) the situation of one plaintiff in particular, O.C.G., and (3) the government's plan to remove class members to South Sudan.
(1) Department of Defense joinder issue: plaintiffs argued in favor of joinder; the government argued against.
Plaintiffs moved to join the Department of Defense, arguing that DHS was using military resources and custody arrangements to effectuate unlawful removals and avoid compliance with court orders. The government opposed the motion. The court has not yet ruled on the joinder issue.
(2) O.C.G.'s situation:
The government took the position that O.C.G. had told a DHS officer that he did not have any fear of removal to Mexico -- but after the court ordered discovery on the issue, the government (on May 15) cancelled a May 16 deposition, and filed a "Notice of Errata" that stated,
“[u]pon further investigation, Defendants cannot identify any officer who asked O.C.G. whether he had a fear of return to Mexico. Nor can Defendants identify the officer who O.C.G. states ‘told [him] that he was being deported to Mexico.’” Dkt. 103 at 1.
Defendants also filed other amended discovery responses, correcting prior misstatements.
Plaintiffs then moved for emergency relief. They pointed out that given O.C.G.'s fear of persecution, his deportation to a third country without process violated the law, and that the Notice of Errata originally filed (though subsequently redacted) included O.C.G.'s full name, augmenting his risk. They included a declaration from O.C.G., where he set out his acute fear of persecution after the mistaken deportation, and they sought immediate facilitation by the government of his return to the U.S.
On May 23, Judge Murphy agreed and granted a preliminary injunction with respect to O.C.G.'s situation. 2025 WL 1487238. The court found that Plaintiffs were likely to demonstrate that O.C.G.'s due process rights had been violated, and ordered the government to "take all immediate steps, including coordinating with Plaintiffs’ counsel, to facilitate the return of O.C.G. to the United States." It directed defendants to file a status report within five days.
On May 28, the government said that ICE was "currently working with ICE Air to bring O.C.G. back to the United States on an Air Charter Operations (ACO) flight return leg." On June 4, news reports said he'd arrived back in the U.S.
(3) South Sudan:
The government soon attempted to remove class members to South Sudan, echoing the Libya incident. On May 20, 2025, class members were abruptly moved from immigration detention to a military base with little warning. Initially, ICE informed class member N.M. and his attorney that he would be removed to South Africa, then attempted to recall that message and later stated he would be removed to South Sudan—a country engulfed in civil war and subject to U.S. State Department travel warnings. Plaintiffs filed papers seeking an emergency order enjoining the government from effectuating the removal of N.M., T.T.P., and any other class member to South Sudan without first complying with the court’s preliminary injunction. The motion emphasized that removals to South Sudan could not proceed unless the affected individuals were given a meaningful opportunity to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Plaintiffs submitted evidence suggesting that a plane was en route to South Sudan with about a dozen class members aboard.
Judge Murphy held an emergency hearing on May 20 and ordered defendants “to maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful.” 2025 WL 1449032. The court set another hearing for the following day and directed defendants to bring the names of all affected class members, along with information on “(1) the time and manner of notice each individual received as to their third-country removal; and (2) what opportunity each individual had to raise a fear-based claim.”
On May 21, the court held that the removal process violated its injunction because class members were not given adequate time to assert CAT-based claims. 2025 WL 1453604. The court clarified its injunction, declaring that a “meaningful opportunity” to express a fear of removal required “a minimum of ten days.” As for the class members already en route—who were being held at a military base in Djibouti—the court ordered the government to retain custody and control over them and imposed a series of remedial measures. These included requirements that the government provide each detainee a reasonable fear interview “in private,” give at least 72 hours’ notice before the interview, and ensure access to resources “commensurate” with what would have been provided in the United States.
On May 27, the government requested the Supreme Court to stay the order immediately, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction and erred on the merits. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 4.
Back in the district court, the government submitted a June 2 status report stating that all eight class members remained in DHS custody in Djibouti and that DHS had established procedures allowing them to speak privately with counsel.
In the Supreme Court
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s emergency application to stay the preliminary injunction. 2025 WL 1732103. The ruling–which was an order only, without any opinion–allows DHS to resume third-country removals while the First Circuit appeal proceeds. In dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, criticized the Court for enabling ongoing due process violations, calling the Court’s decision a “gross abuse” of equitable discretion.
On June 24, Judge Murphy stated that his May 21 remedial order—designed as a remedy for prior violations—remains fully in effect despite the Supreme Court’s action. Later that day, U.S. Solicitor General John C. Sauer filed a follow-up request asserting that the Supreme Court’s stay also “effectively stayed” Murphy’s May 21 order. He urged the Court to clarify that the government could immediately resume third‑country removals from Djibouti, arguing that Judge Murphy’s actions reflected “defiance” of the Supreme Court’s authority. Counsel for the class members argued that the May 21 order remained valid because it addressed the government’s prior violation of the April 18 preliminary injunction.
On July 3, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned opinion clarifying that its June 23 stay of the preliminary injunction also applied to Judge Murphy’s May 21 remedial order concerning the eight class members held in Djibouti. 2025 WL 1832186. The majority wrote that the May 21 order “cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.” Justice Kagan concurred in the judgment, stating that although she disagreed with the Court’s decision to grant the stay, the district court could not enforce an order that the Supreme Court had paused. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Jackson, expressing concern that the ruling would allow removals without the procedural protections required by the Convention Against Torture. The decision permits the government to proceed with third-country removals from Djibouti while appeals are ongoing.
In the District Court
Back in the district court, on July 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an indicative ruling, asking the court to state its intention to dissolve the April 18 preliminary injunction if the case were remanded by the First Circuit. Plaintiffs argued that although the Supreme Court’s stay had rendered the injunction effectively inoperative, it remained formally in place. They contended that the injunction no longer provided any active protection and should be formally dissolved once the case returned to the district court, allowing the litigation to proceed on the underlying legality of DHS’s actions rather than a now-suspended injunction.
At the same time, Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to declare unlawful and set aside DHS’s practice of removing individuals to third countries. For Count I, alleging violations of statutory removal provisions, Plaintiffs argued that DHS violated 8 U.S.C. § 1231 by failing to prioritize removal to a noncitizen’s designated country or country of origin, instead pursuing third-country removals even when primary options were available. They claimed this practice occurred without proper notice or meaningful opportunity to seek protection from persecution or torture, violating both U.S. law and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.
For Count III, alleging Fifth Amendment due process violations, Plaintiffs contended that DHS failed to provide adequate notice of third-country removals, denying individuals the chance to consult counsel, research country conditions, and present fear-based claims before an Immigration Judge.
Finally, on Count IV, brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Plaintiffs sought declarations affirming class members’ rights and invalidating DHS’s third-country removal practices. They requested specific declarations requiring DHS to prioritize removal to designated countries and recognize individuals’ rights to meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise protection claims before any third-country removal.
On August 1, 2025, the defendants moved to stay proceedings pending appeal of the April 18 preliminary injunction. They argued that a stay was required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023), because their appeal raised issues about the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. They also argued for a discretionary stay, asserting that an appellate decision would help streamline the legal issues and promote the “orderly course of justice.”The motion stated that a stay would not cause hardship to the plaintiffs because the Supreme Court had already determined the interim status quo. Additionally, the defendants sought a stay on all compliance discovery, arguing that any civil contempt order would be invalid if the preliminary injunction were ultimately overturned on appeal. As an alternative to a full stay, the defendants sought a 21-day extension to respond to the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment to allow additional time to prepare.
Litigation over the legality of third-country removals remains ongoing in the district court and the First Circuit, although the Supreme Court’s July 3 order permits such removals to proceed while appeals are pending.
Summary Authors
Madilynn O'Hara (4/5/2025)
Clearinghouse (6/5/2025)
Victoria Tan (8/14/2025)
Phan v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, District of Massachusetts (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70616413/parties/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Adams, Matthew H.
Adams, Matt (Massachusetts)
Arango, Tomas (Massachusetts)
Cappelletti, Daniel
Crapo, Matt A.
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70616413/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 10:50 p.m.
State / Territory: Massachusetts
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 23, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Four anonymous class plaintiffs, all noncitizens from Central America and currently residing in Massachusetts, on behalf of a class of "all individuals who have a final removal order issued in proceedings under Section 240, 241(a)(5), or 238(b) of the INA (including withholding-only proceedings) whom DHS has deported or will deport on or after February 18, 2025, to a country (a) not previously designated as the country or alternative country of removal, and (b) not identified in writing in the prior proceedings as a country to which the individual would be removed."
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
United States Attorney General, Federal
Superintendent of the Plymouth County Correctional Facility (Plymouth), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
National / Universal injunction
Order Duration: 2025 - None
Issues
Immigration/Border: