The U.S. Supreme Court on 29 September 2026 granted the Trump administration’s emergency application in Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. D.V.D., et al. — docketed as No. 26A406 — staying a District of Massachusetts order and judgment that had constrained the government’s third-country removal guidance. The Court also treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, granted that petition as No. 26-426, and directed briefing for argument in the December 2026 session.

A stay restores the government’s ability to use the challenged third-country-removal guidance while the Court decides the merits. It is not a final holding that the guidance is lawful.
Citizen impact: Third-country removals are the practice of sending removable noncitizens to a country that is neither the United States nor (in the contested cases) the country named in their removal order — typically when the home country will not take them back. The policy affects deportees facing possible persecution or torture in a newly designated destination, communities that absorb removals, and domestic capacity when removals stall. Pair with Québec / IRCC capacity coverage on this site — different systems, same citizen question: who may be removed, where, and with what notice.

What the Court ordered (primary docket)

Per the Supreme Court docket entry of 29 September 2026: the application presented to Justice Jackson and referred to the Court is granted. The 25 February 2026 order and judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (case No. 1:25-cv-10676) are stayed. The stay terminates upon the sending down of this Court’s judgment. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application for stay. SCOTUSblog records the stay vote as 6–3.

The Court directed briefing on, among other questions: (1) whether the district court had jurisdiction; (2) whether it had authority to enter classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s Guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. §1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or FARRA/CAT and implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions the Government determines are appropriate. Argument is set for the December 2026 session.

How the file got here

Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the stay application on 24 September 2026 after First Circuit proceedings dissolved an earlier stay of the district court’s relief. Justice Jackson set a response due 28 September; respondents and amici filed; the government replied 29 September; the application was referred to the full Court the same day and granted.

Contested: The government frames third-country removals as an essential tool when home countries refuse returns, including for some criminal aliens. Respondents argue classwide notice and an opportunity to raise persecution/torture fears before removal to a newly designated third country. This piece tracks the verified stay and grant of certiorari — not a prediction of the December merits outcome.

Bottom line

Do not write “the Supreme Court permanently approved third-country deportations.” Verified as of 29 September 2026: stay of the Massachusetts judgment granted; certiorari granted as No. 26-426; December argument ordered; three Justices would have denied the stay. Watch the merits briefing and any interim agency practice changes under the stayed judgment.