Attorneys representing a group of African migrants deported from the United States to Ghana sounded the alarm in federal court this weekend, warning that their clients could soon be sent back to their countries of origin—despite explicit legal protections meant to shield them from persecution and torture. The unfolding legal battle, which played out during an emergency hearing on Saturday, September 13, 2025, has spotlighted not only the fate of these individuals but also broader questions about U.S. obligations under international law and the controversial use of so-called third-country deportations.
According to ABC News, the case centers around more than a dozen migrants—including nationals from Gambia and Nigeria—who were deported to Ghana earlier this month at the request of the Trump administration. Attorneys for the migrants allege that, upon arrival, their clients were held in squalid conditions under armed military guard in an open-air detention facility. The legal team contends that these individuals are now at imminent risk of being sent on to their home countries, where they fear persecution or torture—a scenario U.S. immigration law and international treaties are supposed to prevent.
One plaintiff’s story has already taken a harrowing turn. As reported in the lawsuit and confirmed by CBS News, a man from Gambia who identifies as bisexual was returned to his home country, where he is now in hiding due to fears for his safety. Attorneys warned during Saturday’s hearing that four other deportees have been told they could be sent to their native countries as soon as Monday, September 15, 2025, despite having orders from U.S. immigration judges that bar such removals.
The legal protections at the heart of the case are rooted in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and a U.S. immigration provision known as "withholding of removal." These measures prohibit the United States from sending foreigners to countries where they would likely face persecution or torture. However, unlike asylum, these protections still allow the U.S. to transfer individuals to third countries—provided those countries do not, in turn, send them on to places where they would be at risk.
The Trump administration has made extensive use of third-country deportations, brokering agreements with nations such as El Salvador, Kosovo, Panama, and South Sudan to accept deportees who are not their own citizens. Ghana confirmed that it received the deported migrants, according to CBS News. Yet, the assurances that Ghana would not send these individuals to their home countries have quickly come into question.
During the emergency hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the Trump administration to spell out what steps it was taking to prevent the deportees from being removed to countries where they could face harm. She set a deadline of 9 p.m. EST on Saturday for the government to respond. Judge Chutkan made her skepticism clear, stating, "the lack of that power appears to be design. Because what this appears to be is an end-run around the United States' obligation ... You send them to Ghana, and you say, 'But, oh, Ghana says they're not going to send them home' and Ghana immediately prepares to send them home with what appears to be your full awareness."
Government attorneys countered that the U.S. cannot dictate Ghana’s actions, even as they acknowledged that the Ghanaian government seemed to be violating its assurances. "The United States does not have the ability to tell Ghana what to do with these individuals," the Justice Department lawyer argued. The attorney conceded the situation was "frustrating," but insisted the court lacked standing to direct U.S. foreign diplomacy.
Judge Chutkan was unconvinced, pressing the government on whether it knew this outcome was likely and suggesting that the deportations amounted to a disingenuous attempt to sidestep legal protections. "How's this not a violation of your obligation?" she asked. Chutkan floated the possibility that the U.S. could retrieve the deportees and return them to the United States or transfer them to a safe third country. She also suggested the government could at least tell Ghana it was violating its agreement with the U.S.
Yet, Chutkan also recognized the legal and practical limits of her authority, noting that her "hands may be tied" since the deportees are outside U.S. territory and no longer in American custody. She observed that the Supreme Court would likely pause any order requiring the U.S. government to act to stop the returns, referencing a precedent involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, where the court allowed orders to facilitate return from El Salvador.
The attorneys for the migrants, including Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, insisted that time was of the essence. "The Court properly recognized that the United States government, with full knowledge that these individuals are going to be sent to danger, cannot simply wash their hands of the matter," Gelernt told CBS News. The legal team pressed for the court to order the U.S. government to facilitate the return of the migrants or at least urge Ghana not to move them on to their home countries.
The urgency of the situation was underscored by the conditions described in the lawsuit. According to the plaintiffs, five migrants were unlawfully deported to Ghana, with four enduring the grueling 16-hour flight in straitjackets—a detail highlighted by The Washington Post. The lawyers allege that these measures were taken to circumvent restrictions on sending them directly back to their home countries, further raising questions about due process and humane treatment.
Beyond the immediate legal wrangling, the broader context of these deportations has drawn sharp criticism from advocates and legal experts. On September 13, 2025, a lawsuit was filed accusing the Trump administration of wrongful deportations without due process, as reported by CBS News. Lawyers claimed that the administration ignored court orders in deporting migrants to Ghana, sparking fears about the erosion of legal safeguards for vulnerable populations.
As the clock ticks toward the Monday deadline when some migrants could be removed from Ghana, the fate of these individuals hangs in the balance. The case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the U.S. government’s responsibility to protect those fleeing violence and persecution, especially when diplomatic agreements and international law collide with the realities of immigration enforcement.
While the Departments of State and Homeland Security did not immediately comment on the deportations or Judge Chutkan’s order, the legal and moral questions raised by the case are unlikely to fade soon. For the migrants in Ghana—some facing imminent danger in their home countries—the next few days may prove decisive, not just for their safety, but for the future of U.S. obligations to those seeking refuge from harm.
