Nach Mitternacht von Mittwoch zu Donnerstag MESZ (noch Mittwoch Ortszeit) hat der District Court Massachusetts entschieden:

„All removals to third countries, i.e., removal to a country other than the country or countries designated during immigration proceedings as the country of removal on the non-citizen’s order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(1)(C), 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. Dkt. 64 at 46–47. Following notice, the individual must be given a meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of ten days, to raise a fear-based claim for CAT protection prior to removal. See id. If the non-citizen demonstrates ‚reasonable fear‘ of removal to the third country, Defendants must move to reopen the non-citizen’s immigration proceedings. Id. If the non-citizen is not found to have demonstrated a ‚reasonable fear‘ of removal to the third country, Defendants must provide a meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of fifteen days, for the non-citizen to seek reopening of their immigration proceedings. Id.„
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.118.0_1.pdf, S. 2; Hyperlinks hinzugefügt)

Die Vorgeschichte

Außerdem erging u.a. eine zweite Entscheidung, um diese zu verstehen, ist aber zunächst einmal die Vorgeschichte zu rekonstruieren.

1.

Am 28.03. untersagte der District Court Massachusetts u.a. der US-Heimatschutz- und der US-Justizministerin sowie „persons acting in concert […] with them“ bestimmte Abschiebungen:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.34.0_2.pdf (2 Seiten)

Genauer gesagt wurden Abschiebungen in Drittländer ohne vorherige Anhörung der Betroffenen untersagt:

„Defendants, and all of their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from:
a) Removing Plaintiffs D.V.D., M.M., and E.F.D. from the United States to a third country, i.e., a country other than the country designated for removal in the prior immigration proceedings, UNLESS and UNTIL Defendants provide Plaintiffs D.V.D., M.M. and E.F.D., and their respective counsel, with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed, and UNTIL Defendants provide a meaningful opportunity for Plaintiffs D.V.D., M.M. and E.F.D. to submit an application for protection, including withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL Plaintiffs D.V.D., M.M., and E.F.D. receive a final agency decision on any such application;
b) Removing any individual subject to a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, i.e., a country other than the country designated for removal in immigration proceedings, UNLESS and UNTIL Defendants provide that individual, and their respective immigration counsel, if any, with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed, and UNTIL Defendants provide a meaningful opportunity for that individual to submit an application for CAT protection to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL that individual receives a final agency decision on any such application.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.34.0_2.pdf, S. 1 f.; Hyperlink hinzugefügt)

2.

Drei Tage später wurden Abschiebungen dieser Art vom Verteidigungsministerium vorgenommen:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.72.0.pdf

Auf S. 3 folgt nur noch:

„Accordingly, based on the attached declaration, DHS did not violate the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 34)“ (Hyperlink hinzugefügt),

und auf S. 4 folgen Datum, Unterschriften usw.

3.

Die Regierung rechtfertigte sich damit, daß das Verteidigungsministerium nicht zu den Beklagten/AntragsgegnerInnen (defendants) des Verfahrens gehört(e) und nicht auf Anweisung des Heimatschutzministeriums handelt habe:

„DHS did not direct the Department of Defense to remove [… <geschwärzt>]. Id. at ¶ 51. The Department of Defense is not a defendant in this action.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.72.0.pdf, S. 2; Hyperlink hinzugefügt)

4.

Zu einem weiteren Fall trug die Regierung folgendes vor:

„[… <geschwärzt>], a convicted domestic abuser, was removed to Mexico on March 28, 2025 at 8:10 AM before this Court issued its Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 34) in the afternoon of March 28, 2025. Declaration of Tracy J. Huettl, Exhibit A, at ¶¶ 34, 35. Prior to his removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ICE ERO) ‚asked him if he was afraid of being returned to Mexico. At this time, he stated he was not afraid of returning to Mexico.‚ Id. at ¶ 33.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.72.0.pdf, S. 1; Hyperlinks + Hv. hinzugefügt)

5.

a) Das Gericht ordnete daraufhin zwei Beweisermittlungen (disvoveries) an:

aa) Dkt. 82 wg. Plaintiff O.C.G.

„(1) the parties will conduct expedited discovery limited to the issue of whether, or to what extent, Plaintiff O.C.G. received notice that he would be removed to Mexico and any response he provided to that notice the parties will conduct expedited discovery limited to the issue of whether, or to what extent, Plaintiff O.C.G. received notice that he would be removed to Mexico and any response he provided to that notice; (2) all responses to requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and admissions shall be completed by May 12, 2025; (3) each side will be limited to 10 total written discovery requests (the requests for interrogatories and admissions); (4) the deposition of the officer who allegedly provided O.C.G. with notice shall be completed by May 19, 2025; (5) the deposition will be limited to 4 hours; and (6) Defendants must produce O.C.G.’s a-file by May 12, 2025, without redactions, aside from those necessary to protect privileged information or as required by a protective order.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-80)

bb) Dkt. 83 wg Department of Defense und Guantanamo

„For the reasons discussed in today’s hearing, the Court ORDERS that the parties submit a joint discovery plan by May 5, 2025, at 5 p.m. that addresses: (1) the scope and timing of discovery related to the factual circumstances surrounding the removal of the four alleged class members identified in Defendants‘ April 23, 2025 response (Dkt. 72 ) that occurred after the issuance of this Court’s temporary restraining order on March 28, 2025; (2) the relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, including, but not limited to, each agency’s role with regards to removals, the management of Guantanamo Bay, and the March 7, 2025 memorandum of understanding between the two agencies; and (3) the facts in the declaration of Tracy J. Huettl (Dkt. 72-1).“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-83; Hyperlinks hinzugefügt)

b) Außerdem modifizierte der District Court in diesem Kontext seine Preliminary Injunction, die er am 18. April erlassen hatte [siehe zu dieser unten Nr. 10. e)]:

„In light of the issues raised during the April 28, 2025 hearing, this Court modifies a portion of its April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction 64 . This modification preserves the status quo as outlined in this Court’s preliminary injunction. See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Xia, 2024 WL 3447849, at *6-7 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2024) (collecting cases modifying preliminary injunctions pending appeal in order to preserve the status quo). Defendants have represented to this court that that removals from Guantanamo Bay to third countries have been executed by the Department of Defense without the Department of Homeland Security’s direction or knowledge, see Dkt 72, and the Court makes no finding on the accuracy of this assignment of responsibility but, in an abundance of caution, ORDERS that, prior to removing, or allowing or permitting another agency to remove, an alien from Guantanamo Bay to a third country, Defendants must comport with the terms of the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction by providing the due-process guarantees set forth in Dkt. 64 at 46-47. At the April 28, 2025 hearing, the status of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center was debated. The Court declines to resolve if transportation to this base is a deportation to a third country despite the United States‘ exercise of jurisdiction and control over the base. Given the position taken by the Government that the deportation from Guantanamo to third countries was not at the direction, behest or control of the Department of Homeland Security, a debated issue to be resolved once preliminary discovery has been conducted, this Court ORDERS that, after taking custody of an alien, Defendants may not cede custody or control in any manner that prevents an alien from receiving the due-process guarantees outlined in the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-86; Hv. hinzugefügt)

c) Die Beweisermittlung ergab bisher Folgendes:

aa) Dkt. 82 wg. Plaintiff O.C.G.<

Freitag, den 16. Mai reichte die Regierung eine Notice of Errata ein, in der es u.a. heißt:

„Defendants hereby advise the Court of an error in the March 25, 2025, declaration of Brian Ortega. See Declaration of Brian Ortega, ECF No 31-1. The declaration represented, based on internal database information, that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, (ICE ERO) ‚verbally asked O.C.G. if he was afraid of being returned to Mexico. At this time O.C.G. stated he was not afraid of returning to Mexico.‘ Id. at ¶¶ 2, 13; Ex. A, Declaration of Brian Ortega at ¶ 5. Defendants have relied on this declaration to make corresponding statements to the Court. See e.g., ECF No. 31 at 19. 21. Upon further investigation, Defendants cannot identify any officer who asked O.C.G. whether he had a fear of return to Mexico.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.103.0_1.pdf, S. 2 [von 3 Seiten)

Darauf reichten die Betroffenen Sonntag, den 18. Mai eine weitere Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction nebst 20-seitiger Begründung ein:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.104.0_3.pdf.

Die Regierung antwortete Dienstag, den 20. Mai:

Response to Motion re 104 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Pamela Bondi [Heimatschutzministerin], et al.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.113.0.pdf (10 Seiten)

Eine Entscheidung des Gerichts gibt es noch nicht (es sei denn, es wäre mir etwas entgangen) – vermutlich, weil dann erst einmal die Angelegenheit dringlicher war, die zu dem ganz am Anfang genannten Beschluß von gestern führte.

bb) Dkt. 83 wg Department of Defense und Guantanamo

Am 5. Mai wurde der gemeinsame Vorschlag der Parteien für einen Discovery Plan bei Gericht eingereicht:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.88.0_3.pdf (5 Seiten)

Dazu ordnete das Gericht am 7. Mai an:

„After reviewing the parties‘ proposed discovery plans, the Court ORDERS that: (1) the parties will conduct expedited discovery limited to the issues of (a) the scope and timing of discovery related to the factual circumstances surrounding the removal of the four alleged class members identified in Defendants‘ April 23, 2025 response (Dkt. 72) that occurred after the issuance of this Court’s temporary restraining order on March 28, 2025; (b) the relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, including, but not limited to, each agency’s role with regards to removals, the management of Guantanamo Bay, and the March 7, 2025 memorandum of understanding between the two agencies; and (c) the facts in the declaration of Tracy J. Huettl (Dkt. 72-1); (2) any deposition notices must be served by May 12, 2025; (3) each side will be limited to twenty-five Requests for Admission, twenty-five Interrogatories, and two sets of Requests for Production, issued by May 14, 2025; (4) any objection, motion to quash, or motion for a protective order must be made within fourteen days of receipt of the discovery request or subpoena, and each request and subpoena should reference this time limit; (5) all responses to requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and admissions shall be completed within thirty days of receipt of the request; and (6) depositions shall be completed by June 26, 2025.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-92; Hyperlinks hinzugefügt)

Am selben Tag forderte das Gericht die Verfahrensbeteiligten auf, zu einer etwaigen Hinzufügung des Verteidigungsministeriums auf der Passiv-Seite des Verfahrens Stellung zu nehmen:

„Based on DHS’s representations that DoD has been conducting third country removals, allegedly without any involvement of DHS, the Court ORDERS that each party will submit a memorandum of no more than ten pages by May 14, 2025, addressing whether DoD should be joined as a party in this case. Any response, or no more than five pages, should be filed by May 19, 2025.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-93)

Antworten vom 14. Mai:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.98.0_4.pdf (14 Seiten der Betroffenen)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.100.0_4.pdf (4 Seiten der Regierung)

Die Rück-Antworten vom 19. Mai:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.107.0.pdf (8 Seiten der Betroffenen)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.108.0.pdf (4 Seiten der Regierung)

Eine Entscheidung des Gerichts scheint es auch dazu noch nicht zu geben (es sei denn, ich habe etwas übersehen) – vermutlich wiederum, weil dann erst einmal Neues und Dringendeste kam, was zu den Entscheidungen von heute Nacht führte.

6.

Zwischendurch ging es allerdings noch um Lybien:

a) Antrag:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.89.0_2.pdf (11 Seiten)

b) Entscheidung des Gerichs:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.91.0_4.pdf (2 Seiten).

Südsudan-Abschiebungen

7.

a) Dienstag, den 20.05.:

Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by D.V.D., et al.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.111.0_2.pdf (3 Seiten)

Die Begründung dafür:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.112.0.pdf (17 Seiten)

b) Der Antrag führte – ebenfalls noch am Dienstag – zu einer ersten mündlichen Verhandlung, die mit folgendem Ergebnis endete:

„At today’s emergency hearing, the Court ordered Defendants 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. While the Court leaves the practicalities of compliance to Defendants‘ discretion, Defendants have ensured, and the Court expects, that class members will be treated humanely.The Court has further ordered that Defendants be prepared at tomorrow’s prescheduled hearing to identify by name the affected class members and to address: (1) the time and manner of notice each individual received as to their third-country removal; and (2) what opportunity each individual had to raise a fear-based claim. In the event that Defendants determine that N.M. is not a class member, or was otherwise removed to any country other than South Sudan, Defendants must nonetheless be prepared to address the details of his removal, including when and to where he was removed, the names of individuals personally involved in executing his removal, and any information currently in Defendants‘ possession regarding his current whereabouts.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-116)

b) Gestern war dann eine weitere mündliche Verhandlung, die zu dem eingangs bereits zitierten Beschluß führte und zu einer zweiten – eingangs bereits erwähnten, aber noch nicht zitierten – Entscheidung:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.119.0.pdf (2 Seiten)

Daß das Gericht der Regierung zur Auswahl läßt,

„to provide this process to the six individuals either within the United States — should it choose to return them to the United State s— or abroad“

(und [noch] nicht die Erleichterung der Rückholung anordnet) dürfte u.a. daran liegen, daß es die Regierung bereits am Vortrag verpflichtet hatte,

„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“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-116)

Das heißt: Sollte später eine Rückholung angeordnet werden, so kann sich die Regierung noch weniger als in anderen Verfahren darauf rausreden, daß sie habe keine Kontrolle mehr über die Betroffenen und sei nicht in der Lage, sie zurückzuholen.

Außerdem gab es am Mittwoch noch zwei ganz kurze Beschlüsse:

„Defendants must submit by 5:00 p.m. on May 22, 2025, under the pains and penalties of perjury, a declaration addressing the news reports regarding statements made by South Sudan’s police spokesperson, Maj. Gen. James Monday Enoka, that if migrants arrive in South Sudan, they would be investigated and ‚redeported to their correct country‘ if found not to be South Sudanese, and whether this implicates the prohibition against chain refoulement.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-121)

„Defendants must submit by 5:00 p.m. on May 28, 2025, under the pains and penalties of perjury, a declaration from an attorney of record in this case that certifies: (1) that notice of the clarified preliminary injunction (Dkt. 118) has been provided to all persons involved in the removal process; and (2) that all individuals potentially involved in any removal that may implicate this order have been told that failure to comply with the terms of the preliminary injunction may subject them to civil or criminal contempt.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-122; Hyperlink hinzugefügt)

23. März: Einleitung des Verfahrens

8.

Das ganze Verfahren begann am 23.03. u.a. mit

a) einem 38-seitigen complaint, wo wir u.a. erfahren, worum es im Ausgangspunkt in diesem Verfahren geht:

„Plaintiffs and proposed class members are noncitizens with final removal orders resulting from proceedings in which they have been notified that they could be deported to a designated country of removal (usually their country of origin) and, in some cases, an alternative country of removal (usually a country of which they are a citizen or in which they hold status) and had an opportunity to contest removal to the designated country based on a claim of fear. They bring this class action to challenge the policy or practice of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of deporting, or seeking to deport, them to a third country – a country never designated for removal – without first providing them with notice or opportunity to contest removal on the basis that they have a fear of persecution, torture, and even death if deported to that third country.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.1.0_2.pdf, S. 1)

b) einer dreiseitigen Motion for Class Certification nebst Begründung:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.5.0_1.pdf (22 Seiten)

und

c) einer dreiseitige Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motio to Stay Administrative Action nebst Begründung:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.7.0_1.pdf (22 Seiten).

9.

Am 25.03. kam die Regierungs-Antwort auf die Motion for TRO etc.:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.31.0_1.pdf (24 Seiten).

10.

Die TRO vom 28. März (Dkt. 34)

a) Am 28. März wurde dann die beantragte und bei Nr. 2 bereits erwähnte TRO vom Gericht erlassen (siehe oben Nr. 1).

b) Die Regierung kündigte umgehend appeal-Einlegung an und beantragte am nächsten Tag sowohl beim District als auch beim Appeals Court die Außer-Vollzug-Setzung der TRO für die Dauer des appeal-Verfahrens.
Der District Court lehnte den stay-Antrag am selben Tag ab; der Appeals Court lehnte den Antrag – nach Antwort und Rück-Antwort – am 7. April ab.

c) Am selben Tag kam auch (erst) die 8-seitige Begründung des District Court für die TRO.

c) Erst am 4. April antwortete die Regierung auf die Motion for TRO etc., was wohl als Einwand gegen die Umwandlung der TRO in eine PI zu verstehen ist. Am selben erwiderte die Regierung auf die Motion to certify class.

d) Die Rück-Erwiderung der Betroffenen kam am 8. April.

Preliminary Injunction vom 18. April (Dkt. 64)

e) Am 18. April entschied das Gericht über die Antrag auf PI und „Klassen“-Zertifizierung:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.64.0_7.pdf (48 Seiten).

f) Die Regierung kündigte wiederum appeal-Einlegung an und beantragte wiederum bei beiden Gerichten – was notwendig ist – die Außer-Vollzug-Setzung. Der District Court lehnte die Außer-Vollzug-Setzung gleich ab und der Appeals Court – nach Erwiderung und Rück-Antwort – am 16. Mai ebenfalls:

„The emergency motion for a stay of the April 18 preliminary injunction pending appeal and for an immediate administrative stay is denied, the government not having met the standard for the relief sought.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.52758/gov.uscourts.ca1.52758.00108286763.0_3.pdf, S. 1 [von 2 Seiten])

An den Supreme Court scheint sich die Regierung in dem Verfahren bisher nicht gewandt zu haben.

PS.:

Gegen Mitternacht von Do. zu Fr. MESZ kam noch:

Declaration by O.C.G.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.123.0_2.pdf

Response to Court Order by Pamela Bondi, et al.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-124 (2 Seiten + 8 Seiten + 4 Seiten). Die vier Seiten betreffen „‚the news reports regarding statements made by South Sudan’s police spokesperson, Maj. Gen. James Monday Enoka, that if migrants arrive in South Sudan, they would be investigated and ›redeported to their correct country‹ if found not to be South Sudanese and whether this implicates the prohibition against chain refoulment.‘ ECF No. 121.“

PPS.:

Im Laufe der Nacht von Do. zu Fr. kam noch eine weitere Declaration der Regierung:

Declaration re 120 Order,,,, by Pamela Bondi, Antone Moniz, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.125.0.pdf (2 Seiten)

Siehe auch:

Myah Ward / Kyle Cheney / Josh Gerstein
A Trump admin effort to deport immigrants to Libya would ‘clearly violate’ court order, judge says. Lawyers for immigrants from Laos, Vietnam and the Philippines rushed to court to stop what they called an “imminent” deportation flight to the war-torn African nation
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/07/trump-libya-deportation-flight-00333968

Phil Stewart / Idrees Ali / Humeyra Pamuk
Swiftly deporting migrants to Libya would violate court order, US judge rules
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-may-soon-deport-migrants-libya-military-flight-sources-say-2025-05-07/

Kelly Garrity / Kyle Cheney / Josh Gerstein
Trump admin deportation flight to South Sudan violated court order, judge rules. It’s the latest rebuke in an escalating clash over Trump’s deportation agenda. Several judges have now accused the administration of defying the courts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/21/trump-deportations-south-sudan-00362919

Benjamin Wittes / James Pearce / Anna Bower / Roger Parloff
Trials of the Trump Administration, May 22
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live–trials-of-the-trump-administration–may-22, Min. 3:25 – 33:22.

D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (1:25-cv-10676)
District Court, D. Massachusetts
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security

D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (25-1311)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69816138/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/

D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (25-1393)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69927437/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/