Citizenship by birth is a constitutional right protected under the...
Read MoreYasin Bilgehan Akalan
Attorney at Law
Immigration Law Expert – Akalan Law Firm
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a decisive step with major consequences for immigration law and asylum protection. The Court suspended a ruling from the Massachusetts District Court that had blocked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from transferring people to third countries without notice or due process. The District Court had issued a nationwide ban, but the Supreme Court held that such sweeping injunctions exceed the lower court’s authority. This decision reignited debate on whether asylum seekers may face transfer to countries where torture remains a real risk.
On April 18, 2025, in DVD v. DHS, the District Court held that DHS could not send individuals to third countries without written notice and without allowing them to express fear of torture or mistreatment.
The first petitioner, O.C.G., a Guatemalan national, faced removal to Guatemala. The Immigration Court had barred his return due to persecution and torture risks. Despite this, DHS secretly transferred him to Mexico for onward removal. There, he was kidnapped and violently assaulted.
Similar cases followed. Some asylum seekers were sent toward South Sudan. DHS failed to give notice and exposed them to severe security risks. (U.S. Supreme Court Concurring Opinion) On July 5, 2025, these individuals were flown to South Sudan. (Associated Press) DHS also planned removals to Libya, a country marred by war and torture practices.
The case was filed as a class action. Though identified as ‘D.V.D.,’ the suit represented many affected individuals. Petitioners came from different nations but faced the same unlawful DHS practice. The agency ignored torture risks in third countries and gave no notice before removal.
Petitioners argued DHS’s policy was illegal. They pointed to federal law (FARRA §1242) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Both prohibit returning anyone to a country where they risk torture or inhuman treatment.
The court halted DHS’s policy nationwide. It required written notice before transfer. It also required an opportunity for each individual to voice fear of torture. The court stressed that DHS’s repeated violations justified broad relief beyond the named plaintiffs.
The U.S. ratified CAT in 1994. To comply, Congress passed laws including the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. Section 1242 bans removal of any person to a country where torture is likely. This aligns with Article 3 of CAT.
With the return of former President Donald J. Trump to the White House, the federal government has launched an aggressive mass deportation initiative, reaching far beyond criminal aliens
Normally, an appeal of the District Court’s ruling would go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. However, DHS filed an emergency application before the process concluded. It asked the Supreme Court to halt the District Court’s injunction immediately, arguing that compliance would cause irreparable harm.
The Supreme Court can act on such urgent requests. These fast, often limited opinions are known in media and academia as the ‘shadow docket.’
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court temporarily suspended the District Court’s order. (U.S. Supreme Court. [2025, June 23])It signaled that nationwide injunctions may exceed lower courts’ authority. The Court suggested such relief should be limited to the parties in the case.
In short, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits. It only paused enforcement of the lower court’s injunction. This gave DHS temporary relief and narrowed the debate over broad injunctions.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals will review the District Court’s ruling. Importantly, an injunction continues during appeal unless stayed. To suspend it, DHS must seek a stay first from the District Court, then the First Circuit, and finally the Supreme Court if necessary.
If the First Circuit affirms, the injunction stands. If it vacates, the injunction dissolves. At that point, either party may petition the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court denies certiorari, the First Circuit’s ruling becomes final. If it grants certiorari, enforcement depends again on whether a stay is issued.
In short: Injunctions remain in force during appeals unless a court issues a stay.
1-Narrowed Collective Protection
Limiting nationwide injunctions weakens collective protection. Hundreds of similarly situated people must now file separate cases.
2-Security Gaps
The principle of non-refoulement weakens in practice. Asylum seekers risk removal to countries where torture remains real.
3-Psychological and Social Impact
Uncertainty fuels fear and distrust among asylum seekers. It also damages the United States’ human rights reputation abroad.
4-Access Barriers
Accelerated deportations already limit access to counsel. Less judicial oversight deepens this barrier.
Trump tightened Green Card reviews, citing national security and public order. The decision extended waiting times for thousands. It also increased rejection risks.
DHS practices created real dangers, as O.C.G.’s case showed. Despite a ban on return to Guatemala, he was secretly transferred through Mexico. He was kidnapped and assaulted. Similarly, asylum seekers flown to South Sudan faced deadly risks. Planned transfers to Libya posed equal threats in a country ravaged by war and torture.
The Supreme Court’s restriction on lower courts’ power is not a mere technicality. It directly affects the safety and survival of asylum seekers. The DHS v. D.V.D. case shows how the non-refoulement guarantee has weakened. The outcome leaves asylum seekers more vulnerable and undermines U.S. international obligations.
The Supreme Court’s decision means that it granted the federal government’s request to lift a lower court’s injunction that had temporarily halted the removal of an asylum seeker. As a result, the government is now authorized to proceed with the deportation.
Following the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may move forward with removing the individual from the United States. However, the person’s legal team may seek alternative remedies or emergency relief, though their options are now more limited.
The ruling may restrict access to judicial review for other individuals in expedited removal proceedings, making it harder to obtain temporary protection from deportation through federal courts. It signals a potential shift toward limiting court oversight in urgent asylum claims.
Legislators may respond by proposing changes to immigration laws to restore or clarify due process protections. In the meantime, lower courts may continue to grapple with similar cases, potentially leading to future legal challenges or further clarification from the Supreme Court.
DVD v. DHS, District of Massachusetts, April 18, 2025: https://iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/2025.04.18_PI_-_DVD_v._DHS.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court, DVD v. DHS, June 23, 2025: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf
Convention Against Torture (CAT): https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998:https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/1757
U.S. Supreme Court Concurring Opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/24A1153
Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/trump-south-sudan-djibouti-deport-supreme-court-50f9162cff680b5c8729873e11d514e9
Citizenship by birth is a constitutional right protected under the...
Read More
U.S. immigration visas for individuals include a range of categories...
Read More
Trump’s 2025 mass deportation policies have reignited constitutional battles and...
Read MoreAkalan Law Firm, PLLC
All Rights Reserved © 2024
