Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.
No. 26-426 · October Term 2026 · Judicial Power
Expected vote 6–3 for Department of Homeland Security. Chance of a unanimous ruling 44%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
The Department of Homeland Security is appealing a First Circuit decision concerning its guidance on third-country removals, which was challenged by D.V.D. and others. The lower court found in favor of D.V.D., granting classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur. The Supreme Court will determine if the district court had jurisdiction and authority to issue such relief, and whether the government's guidance violates immigration law, due process, or international agreements.
- Jurisdiction: The Court must decide if the district court had the power to hear the respondents' claims, which is a fundamental question in any case.
- Scope of Relief: A key issue is whether the district court could issue classwide declaratory relief and vacate the government's guidance under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1), which limits judicial review in certain immigration matters.
- Legality of Guidance: The Court will assess whether the Department of Homeland Security's guidance on third-country removals is lawful under 8 U.S.C. §1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) regulations.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Order of September 29, 2026 The parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Respondents ’ claims. (2) Whether the district court 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 its implementing regulations. (4) Such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Judicial Power cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often prioritizes judicial restraint and the proper scope of federal court power, which will be central to the jurisdictional and remedial questions in this case. | 66% Department of Homeland Security | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 197 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas typically favors a strict textualist approach to statutory interpretation and has often supported broad executive authority in immigration matters, which could influence his view on the legality of the guidance and the district court's authority. | 66% Department of Homeland Security | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Judicial Power · 388 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally takes a conservative stance on immigration issues and often defers to executive branch interpretations of immigration law, which could lead him to support the government's position on the guidance and challenge the lower court's intervention. | 68% Department of Homeland Security | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Judicial Power · 190 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often emphasizes due process protections and the rights of individuals, particularly in immigration cases, which could lead her to scrutinize the government's guidance and the potential impact on respondents. | 57% Department of Homeland Security | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Judicial Power · 149 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often considers the practical implications of legal interpretations and has shown a willingness to uphold administrative agency actions when they are within statutory bounds, but also emphasizes statutory limits on agency power. | 57% Department of Homeland Security | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 61% Judicial Power · 137 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a textualist who often focuses on the plain meaning of statutes and has expressed concerns about administrative overreach, which could lead him to carefully examine the statutory basis for the government's guidance and the district court's actions. | 66% Department of Homeland Security | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 83 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often takes a pragmatic approach and has generally supported executive branch authority, particularly in areas like national security and immigration, while also emphasizing adherence to statutory text. | 66% Department of Homeland Security | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 73% Judicial Power · 62 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is a textualist who often focuses on the original public meaning of statutes and has shown a tendency to limit the scope of judicial review, which could influence her perspective on the jurisdictional and remedial questions. | 66% Department of Homeland Security | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 71% Judicial Power · 49 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often emphasizes the importance of statutory interpretation and has shown a concern for procedural fairness, which could lead her to carefully consider the due process claims and the statutory limits on government action. | 57% Department of Homeland Security | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 60% Judicial Power · 37 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.