Subsequent Trump and Court Action(s)

• February 1, 2025

  2025.03.26 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Westley v. Harper

  Arely Westley filed a habeas petition to challenge her detention. Westley had been released on an order of supervision in 2024, and was re-detained on February 1, 2025 for deportation. She alleges that the sudden detention violated her constitutional rights and federal law. Westley v. Harper, No. 2:25-cv-00229 (E.D. La.).

  **Litigation entries are limited to initial complaints and major substantive rulings. For pleadings and additional information, use name and docket number to search Civil Rights Clearinghouse and CourtListener or visit Just Security Litigation Tracker**

  View Document
• February 25, 2025

  2025.02.25 Order Dismissing Case - Westley v. Harper

  The district court denied Westley’s motion for preliminary injunction and dismissed the case, finding that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain her claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) as they arise from the decision to execute a removal order. Westley v. Harper, No. 2:25-cv-00229 (E.D. La.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• March 23, 2025

  2025.03.23 Class Action Complaint - D.V.D. v U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  Four individuals with final removal orders filed a national class action in the District of Massachusetts challenging DHS’s policy of deporting noncitizens to third countries without notice and the opportunity to raise fear-based claims. The lawsuit claims that the email directive sent by ICE on February 18 "magnified the practical impact" of DHS's new policy of removing noncitizens to third countries by "instruct[ing] DHS officers to review all cases of individuals previously released from immigration detention – including those who have complied with the terms of their release for years, even decades – for re-detention and removal to a third country."

  Plaintiffs argue this violates "basic procedural protections" and denies noncitizens the "opportunity to present a fear-based claim." Moreover, plaintiffs claim the policy puts lives at risk, pointing to cases like O.C.G., who was deported to Mexico despite evidence of previous persecution. The lawsuit seeks to block DHS from carrying out these removals without basic procedural safeguards. D.V.D. v U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D.Mass.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• March 26, 2025

  2025.03.26 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Ceesay v. Brophy

  Sering Ceesay filed a habeas petition, alleging that his detention violates federal law and the Constitution. Ceesay had been released on an order of supervision in 2010, and was re-detained during a regularly scheduled check-in with ICE on February 19, 2025, one day after the release of the email directive described in this entry. Ceesay v. Brophy, No. 1:25-cv-00267 (W.D.N.Y.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• March 28, 2025

  2025.03.28 TRO - D.V.D v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy granted a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from deporting any person to a country they are not a national of without written notice and a "meaningful opportunity" to apply for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture in the U.S.. D.V.D. v U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• March 30, 2025

  2025.03.30 DHS Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals

  Subsequent to the TRO issued in the D.V.D. litigation, DHS Secretary Noem issued guidance on removing noncitizens with a final order of removal to a third country not previously designated as the country of removal. Under the guidance, noncitizens may be removed to a third country "without the need for further procedures" if that country has provided credible "diplomatic assurances" that noncitizens removed there "will not be persecuted or tortured."

  Immigration officers are instructed to "inform the alien of removal to that country" and not "affirmatively ask whether the alien is afraid of being removed to that country." Any noncitizen that affirmatively states a fear of removal to a third country without being asked will be referred to USCIS for reasonable fear screening. If USCIS determines that a noncitizen "will more likely than not be persecuted on a statutorily protected ground or tortured in the country of removal," he/she may be referred to the immigration court. If he/she was previously in proceedings before the immigration court, ICE can move to reopen the proceedings, or alternatively, "choose to designate another country for removal."

  This memorandum was produced in D.V.D. v. Dep't. of Homeland Sec., 1:25-cv-10676-BEM (D. Mass.).

  View Document
• April 18, 2025

  2025.04.18 Preliminary Injunction - D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy granted class certification to the plaintiffs and issued a preliminary injunction in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.). The court ordered that before removing any noncitizen to a third country that is not provided for on the noncitizen’s order of removal issued in proceedings under INA Sections 240, 241(a)(5), or 238(b), the government must: (1) provide written notice to the noncitizen (and counsel, if any) of the third country to which the noncitizen may be removed, in a language that the noncitizen can understand; (2) provide meaningful opportunity for the noncitizen to raise a fear of return for eligibility for CAT protections; (3) move to reopen the proceedings if the noncitizen demonstrates “reasonable fear”; and (4) if the noncitizen is not found to have demonstrated “reasonable fear,” provide meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of 15 days, for the noncitizen to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal.

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• April 30, 2025

  2025.04.30 DVD v. DHS Order Amending PI

  Judge Brian E. Murphy amended the April 18, 2025, preliminary injunction issued in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.). In response to DHS's representation that certain removals from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to third countries had been executed by the DoD without the direction or knowledge of DHS, the new order clarified that the injunction's due-process protections apply regardless of which agency conducts the removal. The order requires DHS to comply with the due process guarantees set forth in the April 18 injunction before removing a noncitizen from Guantánamo Bay to a third country. The court further ordered that after DHS takes custody of an individual, it may not transfer or cede custody in any manner that would prevent the individual from receiving these due process protections.

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 2, 2025

  2025.05.02 Decision and Order - Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer

  The district court ordered the government to release Ceesay under the conditions of his order of supervision and afford him the opportunity to prepare for an orderly departure. Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer, No. 1:25-cv-00267 (W.D.N.Y.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 7, 2025

  2025.05.07 DVD v. DHS Clarification Order

  Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order clarifying that allegedly imminent removals of various noncitizens to third countries, including but not limited to Libya and Saudi Arabia, would be covered by the April 18 preliminary injunction and the April 30 order amending the April 18 preliminary injunction. The court states plainly that such removals would--if news reporting is accurate--clearly violate those orders.

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 16, 2025

  2025.05.16 Defendants Notice of Errata - D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  DOJ files a Notice of Errata in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security admitting to an error in a declaration filed by Brian Ortega, the Assistant Field Office Director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). Mr. Ortega originally incorrectly asserted that O.C.G. was asked if he feared removal to Mexico and he said he did not. On review, DHS cannot identify the officer who told O.C.G. about removal to Mexico or any officer that inquired about fear. D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document

• 2025.05.21 Memo on PI - D.V.D. v. U.S. Dept of Homeland Security

  In response to the D.V.D. plaintiffs' motion for TRO and PI, Judge Murphy initially ordered DHS 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."

  In the later-issued memorandum order uploaded here, Judge Murphy found that "Defendants violated the Preliminary Injunction entered in this case by failing to provide six non-citizen class members a 'meaningful opportunity' to assert claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture before initiating removal to a third country."

  Judge Murphy clarified that the preliminary injunction required that removals of immigrants to third countries "must be preceded by written notice to both the non-citizen and the non-citizen’s counsel in a language the non-citizen can understand," and that DHS must provide individuals "a minimum of ten days, to raise a fear-based claim for CAT protection prior to removal." He further ordered that "no Defendant may avoid their duty to follow the Preliminary Injunction by involving or ceding responsibility to any other person."

  In a remedial order associated with the above memorandum order, Judge Murphy ordered DHS to provide six individuals removed to South Sudan in violation of the preliminary injunction access to credible fear interviews with access to counsel "commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures occurred within the United States prior to their deportation . . . . Should any individual raise a fear with respect to deportation to the third country that DHS determines falls short of 'reasonable fear,' the individual must be provided meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of 15 days, to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal." During all such proceedings, the removed individuals must remain within "the custody or control of DHS."

  Judge Murphy stated in the remedial order that "[t]he Court cautions Defendants that this remedy should not be construed as setting forth a course of conduct that would constitute compliance with the Preliminary Injunction." D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document