In a high-stakes legal showdown that unfolded over the weekend, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan demanded the Trump administration explain, in no uncertain terms, how it plans to prevent the deportation of five African migrants to countries where they could face torture or death. The controversy emerged after evidence suggested the administration was sidestepping domestic court orders by first sending the migrants to Ghana—a maneuver that could allow Ghana to subsequently deport them to their home countries, in direct defiance of U.S. rulings.
The order, issued late Saturday, September 13, 2025, required the government to submit by 9 p.m. Eastern time a detailed declaration outlining exactly what steps were being taken to ensure Ghana would not act as a conduit for these deportations. According to reporting from CNN and the Associated Press, the judge’s insistence came after one plaintiff had already been sent from Ghana to The Gambia, where a U.S. court had specifically ruled deportation was off limits due to the risk of torture.
Judge Chutkan did not mince words during the hearing. “This appears to be a specific plan to make an end run around these obligations,” she said, referencing the administration’s apparent strategy of using Ghana as a stopover. “What does the government intend to do? And please don’t tell me you don’t have any control over Ghana because I know that.” Her pointed questions made clear she viewed the administration’s actions as, at best, disingenuous—and, at worst, a calculated attempt to circumvent the law.
Elianis Perez, representing the Department of Justice, attempted to reassure the court by stating that Ghana had pledged not to deport the migrants to other countries. But Perez also argued the limits of U.S. judicial authority, saying, “The judge does not have authority to regulate the conduct of another country.” She further pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had, just this summer, ruled the administration could continue sending immigrants to countries other than their origin—even if those individuals had not been given a chance to raise concerns about torture or persecution.
This Supreme Court decision, which has become a central pillar of the administration’s legal defense, has drawn sharp criticism from immigrant advocates. Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was quick to draw parallels to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting it. “After orders from federal judges and the Supreme Court directed the administration to ‘facilitate’ his return, Abrego Garcia eventually came back to the United States—only to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee, as the Trump administration revives another attempt to deport him,” Gelernt explained, according to The Independent.
The current lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C. on Friday, accuses administration officials of enlisting Ghana’s government “to do their dirty work.” The complaint alleges, “Despite the minimal, pass-through involvement of the Ghanaian government, [the Trump administration’s] objective is clear: deport individuals who have been granted fear-based relief from being sent to their countries of origin to those countries anyway, in contravention to the rulings of U.S. immigration judges and U.S. immigration law.” Homeland Security, for its part, has denied claims that the deportees were restrained in straitjackets during the 16-hour journey to Ghana.
The administration’s approach is part of a broader, controversial policy of deporting detainees to so-called third countries—a practice that resumed in July 2025, starting with the African nation of Eswatini. The government’s rationale, as articulated by Justice Department lawyers, is that final orders of removal had been issued by immigration courts, and that the State Department was working with Ghana to ensure compliance with U.S. legal standards. Yet the fact remains: one of the five migrants has already been sent to The Gambia, where he could face grave danger, despite explicit judicial prohibitions.
Judge Chutkan’s skepticism was palpable throughout the proceedings. On Friday, she characterized the administration’s actions as having been carried out “with a wink and a nod,” suggesting that officials had intentionally created a scenario where Ghana could be left to handle the politically and morally fraught decision of whether to send the migrants to their home countries. “What you’re doing, what appears to be happening, is truly disingenuous,” she admonished from the bench.
Legal experts say the case highlights the complexities—and, some argue, the loopholes—of international deportation law. While U.S. courts can issue orders to prevent deportation to certain countries, enforcing those orders once a migrant leaves American soil becomes a far murkier business. As Perez noted, “the judge had no power to control how another country treats deportees,” a limitation that can have life-or-death consequences for those caught in the bureaucratic crossfire.
The administration’s opponents, however, argue that the government is not merely a passive actor. “This seems to be a concrete plan to circumvent these obligations,” Judge Chutkan said, echoing concerns raised by the ACLU and other advocacy groups. They contend that by orchestrating deportations through Ghana, the administration is effectively outsourcing the dirty work of returning migrants to countries where they face persecution—thereby skirting both the letter and the spirit of U.S. asylum law.
The case has also drawn attention to the broader trend of “third country” deportations, which have become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over immigration policy. Under the Trump administration, officials have increasingly sought to remove migrants to countries that are not their homeland—sometimes with little regard for the risks those individuals might face. In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, for example, officials outlined a dizzying plan for his removal that included Costa Rica, Uganda, and Eswatini, depending on the outcome of various legal proceedings.
The stakes for the five African migrants at the center of the current lawsuit could hardly be higher. If Ghana chooses to deport them to their countries of origin, they may face torture, persecution, or even execution—outcomes that U.S. courts have explicitly sought to prevent. Judge Chutkan’s order, requiring the administration to provide assurances by Saturday night, is an attempt to force transparency and accountability in a process that has, until now, operated largely behind closed doors.
As the deadline loomed, all eyes were on the Trump administration to see whether it would comply—and, more importantly, whether its assurances would be enough to satisfy the court and protect the migrants from harm. The outcome of this legal battle could set a precedent for how future administrations handle the fraught question of deportations through third countries, and whether U.S. courts can meaningfully enforce their rulings beyond American borders.
For now, the fate of the five migrants—and perhaps many others—hangs in the balance, caught between the competing imperatives of national sovereignty, judicial authority, and basic human rights.
