Category
Third-Country Removal
Litigation over the practice of removing noncitizens to countries other than their country of citizenship — South Sudan, Eswatini, Uganda, El Salvador's CECOT — and the procedural protections owed before such removals occur.
Eswatini, Uganda, Rwanda, Ghana: The New Third-Country Architecture
A series of bilateral agreements with African nations — Eswatini, Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana — created a new architecture for third-country removals. The U.S. side faces ongoing class litigation; the foreign side has begun to produce its own habeas-equivalent challenges, most notably in the Uganda Law Society’s 2026 court action.
D.V.D. v. DHS: A Class Action Against Removal Without Notice or Screening
Judge Brian Murphy certified a nationwide class, declared the Trump administration’s third-country removal policy unlawful, and set the policy aside under the APA. The case is the structural anchor of every challenge to the post-2025 third-country removal architecture.
AAUP v. Rubio: A Judicial Finding That a Detention Policy Was Designed to Chill Speech
After a two-week bench trial, Judge William Young (a Reagan appointee) found that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security had pursued a policy of arresting and removing noncitizen students and faculty engaged in pro-Palestinian protest with the purpose of chilling protected speech. The opinion is the most thoroughly developed factual record on the 2025 student-detention regime.
The South Sudan Flights: Removal as Operational Defiance
ICE placed six noncitizens on a flight to South Sudan with less than twenty-four hours’ notice in violation of an existing court order. The flight was diverted to Djibouti. Six weeks later, after the Supreme Court’s shadow-docket stay, the men were flown on to South Sudan. Six remained in custody there as of January 2026.
DHS v. D.V.D.: The Supreme Court’s Shadow-Docket Stay of the Murphy Injunction
Without explanation, the Supreme Court stayed the Murphy preliminary injunction in June 2025; on July 3, the Court clarified the stay reached the eight men still held at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. Justice Sotomayor's dissent began: “In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution.”