Challenging the Deportation of Noncitizens with Final Removal Orders to Third Countries Without Due Process
Human Rights First and co-counsel NILA and NWIRP are challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) egregious policy of deporting noncitizens that are subject to final removal orders to countries never previously identified as potential destinations (third countries) without meaningful notice or an opportunity to challenge the removal for fear of persecution, torture, and/or death in the third country. We are also challenging DHS’s February 18, 2025 policy directive which ordered the review of all cases in which noncitizens had been previously released from immigration detention – for purposes of re-detention and potential removal to third countries.
Plaintiffs represent a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals at risk of deportation to a third country without having been afforded the due process guarantees and other avenues for relief provided under federal law. Since filing this lawsuit in March 2025, Plaintiffs have battled the Trump administration’s repeated attempts to effectuate third country removals while this litigation is pending. DHS has removed or sought to remove individuals to war-torn countries, countries in which they have been imprisoned, and to countries that have effectuated chain refoulement by subsequently returning them to countries in which they face persecution or torture. Preliminary issues in the case have been litigated on appeal up to the Supreme Court. Judicial proceedings on the merits of the action continue.
On March 23, 2025, Human Rights First and co-counsel commenced this lawsuit in the District Court of Massachusetts.
On March 28, 2025, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking third country removals without notice and a meaningful opportunity to seek protection under the Convention against Torture. It subsequently issued a memorandum on the TRO on March 29. Defendants appealed the TRO and moved for a stay before the District Court which the Court denied. On April 7, 2025, the First Circuit denied Defendants’ request for a stay of the TRO.
On April 18, 2025, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for certification of a nationwide class and granted, in part, their request for a preliminary injunction. On April 30, the District Court amended the preliminary injunction to clarify certain procedural safeguards set out in the injunction.
On May 7, 2025, in response to reports of a potential deportation flight to Libya without provision for the procedural safeguards set out in the Preliminary Injunction, class counsel filed an emergency request for judicial intervention. The Court subsequently issued a memorandum making clear that any attempt to effectuate the removal would breach the Injunction.
On May 16, 2025, the First Circuit denied Defendants’ request for a stay of the Preliminary Injunction.
On May 20, 2025, upon information that DHS was seeking to deport class members to South Sudan, class counsel filed an emergency TRO request for judicial intervention. Following emergency hearings on May 20 and 21, the Court held that Defendants had violated the Preliminary Injunction as to those class members en route to South Sudan. It also clarified that the Preliminary Injunction requires that Defendants afford class members with a minimum of ten days to raise a fear-based claim. On May 26, the Court denied Defendants’ request that the Court reconsider its ruling.
On May 27, 2025, Defendants filed an emergency application seeking a stay of the District Court's Preliminary Injunction and an immediate administrative stay with the U.S. Supreme Court.
On June 6, 2025, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed that the men it tried to deport to South Sudan on May 20—in violation of a federal court order—are still being held in a converted shipping container at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti.
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted Defendants’ request for a stay of the Preliminary Injunction.
On , Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Motion for an Indicative Ruling as to dissolution of the Preliminary Injunction.
In The News
“U.S. put Asian migrants on deportation flight to South Sudan, lawyers allege.” Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News. May 20, 2025
“Judge Orders U.S. to Keep Custody of Migrants Amid Claims They Were Sent to South Sudan.” Hamed Aleaziz Alan Feuer and Mattathias Schwartz, NY Times. May 20, 2025
“Trump officials violated court order over South Sudan deportation attempt, judge says.”Nate Raymond and Ted Hesson, Reuters. May 21, 2025
“Seattle lawyers sue DHS to stop deportation of detained immigrants to ‘third countries.’” Gustavo Sagrero Álvarez, NPR. May 28, 2025
“Judge Orders Due Process For Removal To Unrelated Countries.” Julie Manganis, Law 360, March 28, 2025
“Deportations to Third Countries Without Notice Halted by Judge.” Megan Crepeau, , March 28, 2025
On August 28, 2025, the District Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Indicative Ruling and advising that it would dissolve the Preliminary Injunction if the First Circuit remanded the appeal for that purpose. On October 20, 2025, however, the First Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ motion for remand. Following oral arguments held on February 3, 2025, Defendants’ appeal of the Preliminary Injunction is currently pending before the First Circuit.
On November 24, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
On December 16, 2025, oral arguments were held on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Both remain pending.
Bloomberg
“US Judge Temporarily Halts Deportations to Third Countries Without a Chance to Challenge.”AP News, March 29, 2025
