The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Dec. 9 in DHS v. D.V.D., the third time the justices have taken up the federal government's power to send migrants to countries where they have no ties. The migrants in the case include a Cuban citizen who receives treatment for severe mental illness and a Honduran citizen who fled an abusive husband. They say the administration's policy could put them in countries where they face persecution or torture. The court, however, is expected to focus on a narrower question: whether courts can force the government to give migrants a chance to challenge their destination before removal.
The policy at issue, announced in February 2025 and revised in March 2025, lets immigration officials send migrants to any country whose government assures the State Department it will not persecute or torture them. When a country provides no such assurance but agrees to accept a migrant, the policy calls for notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, generally 24 hours.
Lower courts found that process inadequate. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy vacated the policy and ordered DHS to notify migrants before sending them to third countries. He cited a Guatemalan migrant who was sent to Mexico despite an immigration judge's finding that he would likely be persecuted in Guatemala; Murphy wrote that DHS lied about what happened. The 1st Circuit largely affirmed, saying the right to contest removal means little without prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to object.
The solicitor general asks the Supreme Court to reverse, arguing that federal statutes bar courts from hearing claims that removal could result in persecution or torture. The court's decision is likely to turn on those technical issues of judicial authority rather than on the high-stakes safety questions the migrants raise.