On September 5, 2025, a plane carrying 14 migrants touched down in Ghana, its passengers thrust into a legal and humanitarian limbo that has now ignited a fierce court battle in Washington, D.C. At the heart of the dispute are five migrants—citizens of Nigeria and Gambia—whose lawyers claim the Trump administration trampled court-ordered protections and orchestrated a secretive transfer to Ghana, sidestepping U.S. immigration laws and exposing their clients to grave danger.
According to Reuters and The New York Times, the lawsuit—filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington—accuses the Trump administration of defying federal judges by using an agreement with Ghana to circumvent prohibitions against deporting migrants to countries where they face torture or persecution. This approach, critics say, amounts to an "end run" around hard-won legal safeguards, with potentially life-threatening consequences.
"Defendants have enlisted the government of Ghana to do their dirty work," the lawyers with Asian Americans Advancing Justice wrote in their court filing. "Despite the minimal, pass-through involvement of the Ghanaian government, defendants’ 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."
One of the five plaintiffs, identified in court documents as K.S., is a bisexual man from Gambia—a country where same-sex relationships are not just taboo but criminalized, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Despite having received legal protection in the U.S. based on the risk he faced at home, K.S. was deported to Gambia on September 10, 2025. His lawyers say he is now in hiding, terrified for his life. The other four plaintiffs remain detained in a remote Ghanaian facility known as Dema Camp, enduring what their attorneys describe as "abysmal" living conditions, with the threat of imminent deportation to their home countries looming over them.
The Trump administration’s strategy is part of a broader pattern. Under pressure to fulfill President Trump’s pledge of mass deportations, officials have brokered deals with several African nations—Rwanda, Uganda, Eswatini, and, most recently, Ghana—to accept migrants expelled from the U.S., many of whom have no ties to those countries. According to court filings, the administration’s approach is to first remove migrants to a third country, then claim it is powerless to prevent that country from deporting them to places where their lives could be at risk. The lawyers argue this is a deliberate attempt to evade legal prohibitions that would otherwise prevent such deportations.
The case bears striking similarities to that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongfully deported to El Salvador earlier this year. As Reuters reported, Abrego Garcia has been locked in a complex legal struggle as the administration attempts to remove him to various African countries. Like the plaintiffs in the Ghana case, he had been granted "withholding of removal"—a status designed to protect individuals from being sent to countries where they could face torture or persecution. Yet, lawyers say, the administration has repeatedly ignored these protections.
“The administration has enabled an ‘end run’ around those prohibitions, by first removing them to Ghana, and then claiming it is powerless to stop Ghana from sending them to their home countries,” the lawyers stated in their filing. In the meantime, the migrants are left in limbo, unsure of their fate and unable to challenge their removal in U.S. courts once they are outside American soil.
The legal maneuvering has unfolded against a backdrop of secrecy and speed. When the 14 migrants were deported to Ghana on September 5, the U.S. had no publicly known agreement with Ghana to accept them, and the arrangement was not publicly acknowledged until Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama held a press conference on September 10. At that event, Mahama confirmed that his government had begun returning the migrants to their home countries, echoing a pattern seen earlier in July when Eswatini agreed to facilitate the removal of migrants to their countries of origin.
Lawyers for the migrants contend that the Trump administration “secreted them away to Ghana, to which none has any connection,” and did so without due process. The plaintiffs, identified only by their initials to protect them from reprisals, argue that their removal violates both U.S. immigration law and the rulings of federal judges. The legal team is now racing to prevent further deportations, with Judge Tanya S. Chutkan currently weighing their request to block the removal of the four migrants still detained in Ghana.
For those left in Dema Camp, the situation is dire. Their lawyers describe the facility as remote and the conditions as "abysmal." The migrants have little idea where they are, and face the constant fear that they could be sent back to countries where, for some, persecution or even death awaits. K.S.’s plight is particularly harrowing; as a bisexual man in Gambia, he faces a legal system that criminalizes same-sex relationships with the threat of life imprisonment. “K.S. is in hiding in Gambia and fears for his life,” the court filing states.
The Trump administration, for its part, has argued that once a migrant is removed from the U.S. and placed in foreign custody, the issue is out of their hands. This argument echoes the stance taken in the Abrego Garcia case, where the Justice Department maintained that it could not intervene once the migrant was outside U.S. borders.
The Supreme Court has largely sided with the administration on these matters, allowing the deportation of migrants to third countries and pausing a lower court’s ruling that would have required the government to give migrants a chance to demonstrate the risk of torture before removal. Critics say this legal landscape leaves vulnerable migrants with few options and little recourse.
As the legal battle continues, the fate of the four migrants still in Ghana hangs in the balance. Judge Chutkan’s decision could have sweeping implications—not just for these individuals, but for the broader question of how the U.S. government handles deportations and honors its legal and moral obligations to those seeking refuge from persecution.
The case has drawn attention from advocates and legal scholars alike, who warn that the administration’s approach could set a dangerous precedent. By outsourcing deportations to third countries and distancing itself from the consequences, critics argue, the government risks undermining the very protections that have been enshrined in U.S. law to prevent the return of vulnerable individuals to harm’s way.
For now, the migrants’ lawyers continue their fight in court, hoping to halt further removals and shine a light on a process they say has been marked by haste, secrecy, and a troubling disregard for human rights. The coming weeks will be critical—not only for the individuals at the center of this case, but for the future of American immigration policy and the nation’s commitment to upholding its own laws and values.
