D.V.D v. DHS

==== D.V.D. v. DHS (on application of stay) ====

==== D.V.D. v. DHS (on application of stay) ====

On June 23, 2025, U.S. Supreme Court determined that the case's application of stay was granted. The case describes the law as describing deportation to a third country as action of last resort. However, non-citizens are allowed to raise a claim under the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]]. The U.S. is part of the United Nation Convention. In 1998, Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, which states that:<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf</ref><blockquote>It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.</blockquote>

On June 23, 2025, U.S. Supreme Court determined that the District Court's application of stay was granted. The case describes the law as describing deportation to a third country as action of last resort. However, non-citizens are allowed to raise a claim under the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]]. The U.S. is part of the United Nation Convention. In 1998, Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, which states that:<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf</ref><blockquote>It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.</blockquote>

==== D.V.D. v. DHS (on motion for clarification) ====

==== D.V.D. v. DHS (on motion for clarification) ====

The ruling starts with the following:<blockquote>On April 18, 2025, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government from removing “any alien” to a “country not explicitly provided for on the alien’s order of removal” without following certain procedures designed to enable the alien to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).{{efn|The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) is the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]]}}</blockquote>

The ruling starts with the following:<ref name=":1">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf</ref><blockquote>On April 18, 2025, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government from removing “any alien” to a “country not explicitly provided for on the alien’s order of removal” without following certain procedures designed to enable the alien to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).{{efn|The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) is the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]]}}</blockquote>After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the District court in the April 28 case, the District Court issued an “order on remedy” on May21. The order directs the Government to follow specified procedures with respect to those individuals, tailored to the circumstances. The majority of the Supreme Court has ruled that such an order was no possible.<ref name=":1" />

==Notes==

==Notes==