On Monday night, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. delivered a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration’s latest immigration tactics, ruling that officials knowingly deported five West African men to Ghana, fully aware they would soon be sent to countries where they could face torture or even death. The ruling, issued by District Judge Tanya Chutkan on September 16, 2025, described a “pattern and widespread effort” by the administration to circumvent U.S. court orders by sending immigrants to so-called “third countries,” which then dispatch them to their home nations—despite explicit protections granted by American immigration judges.
Judge Chutkan’s decision follows a whirlwind of legal and diplomatic maneuvering that has left at least one man already deported to another country, and four others languishing in a Ghanaian prison camp awaiting transfer to Nigeria or The Gambia. The men, all of whom had been granted relief from deportation on fear-based grounds, were forcibly removed earlier this September, enduring a grueling 16-hour journey in straitjackets. The move, plaintiffs argue, was a deliberate attempt to dodge U.S. court orders that would have blocked their return to countries where they credibly fear persecution, torture, or death.
"The court does not reach this conclusion lightly," Judge Chutkan wrote in her ruling, acknowledging the severity of the situation. "It is aware of the dire consequences Plaintiffs’ face if they are repatriated. And it is alarmed and dismayed by the circumstances under which these removals are being carried out, especially in light of the government’s cavalier acceptance of Plaintiffs’ ultimate transfer to countries where they face torture and persecution. But its hands are tied." With the men now under Ghana’s jurisdiction, Chutkan lamented her inability to order their return.
The lawsuit at the heart of this drama accuses Trump administration officials of enlisting Ghana’s cooperation to "do their dirty work"—accepting U.S. deportees only to send them on to places where they face grave danger. According to the complaint, "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."
During a tense hearing just days before the ruling, Judge Chutkan confronted government lawyers directly: "What you’re doing, what appears to be happening, is truly disingenuous." She was unsparing in her assessment of the administration’s strategy, which she said "appear[s] to be taken in disregard of or despite its obligations" to due process "and to treat even those who are subject to removal humanely." Chutkan further warned that these actions "appear to be part of a pattern and widespread effort to evade the government’s legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly."
The Trump administration, for its part, has defended its actions vigorously. Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin released a statement asserting that the agency "has had the law on its side on this from day one" and was "pleased with Chutkan’s decision." She emphasized that "all of these illegal aliens deported to Ghana received due process and had a final order of removal from an immigration judge." McLaughlin also underscored the criminal backgrounds of many deportees, saying, "Many of these were heinous criminals with rap sheets that included injury to a child, robbery, aggravated assault, and fraud." She added, "The average illegal alien gets far more due process than most Americans. The fact of the matter is those who are in our country illegally have a choice — they can leave the country voluntarily or be arrested and deported. If you’re a dangerous criminal here illegally, you could end up in CECOT or in any number of third countries like, in this case, Ghana."
The administration’s use of so-called “third country” deportations isn’t new, but it has escalated sharply since July 2025, when officials resumed the practice starting with the small African nation of Eswatini. The strategy, critics argue, is designed to sidestep legal protections for asylum seekers and others who have been granted relief from deportation due to credible fears of harm in their home countries.
This pattern is not limited to the West African men at the center of Judge Chutkan’s ruling. The administration recently threatened to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a man whose odyssey through the U.S. immigration system has drawn national attention—to four different countries in less than two weeks. After being released from federal custody in Tennessee, he was quickly re-detained in Maryland. Despite federal judges and even the Supreme Court ordering the government to "facilitate" his return from a Salvadoran prison earlier this year, Abrego Garcia was brought back to the United States—only to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Immigration officials presented him with an array of options: removal to Costa Rica if he pleaded guilty, Uganda if not, or El Salvador if he reopened his asylum case. Ultimately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said he would be sent to Eswatini.
Judge Chutkan saw these cases as emblematic of a broader, more troubling shift in U.S. immigration policy. In her order, she noted that "the cases of the African men and Abrego Garcia are part of a series of deportations which signal a drastic change of course from the government’s obligations to due process." She described a disturbing pattern: "In several cases, authorities have rounded up—often at night and with little or no notice—men, women, and children being held in detention facilities, hastily put them on planes and transferred them to other countries, where they have no connections, do not speak the language, and are unable to contact family or counsel."
The administration’s approach has generated fierce debate. Supporters argue that the government is simply enforcing the law and protecting public safety, especially in cases involving individuals with serious criminal records. They maintain that due process has been observed and that the U.S. has a right to remove those present in the country unlawfully. Detractors, however, see a calculated effort to undermine the legal protections afforded to vulnerable immigrants, using third-country deportations as a loophole to bypass court orders and international obligations.
Legal experts warn that this strategy, if left unchecked, could have far-reaching consequences for the integrity of the U.S. immigration system and the country’s global reputation. The practice of transferring detainees to nations where they face language barriers, lack of support, and the looming threat of violence or persecution, they say, raises profound ethical and legal questions. As the debate rages, the fate of those already caught in this web—like the five West African men now in Ghana and Kilmar Abrego Garcia—remains uncertain.
Judge Chutkan’s ruling may be a milestone, but for the individuals affected, it offers little immediate relief. With her "hands tied" and the men beyond the reach of U.S. courts, the human cost of these policies is all too real—and the questions they raise about American values and responsibilities are unlikely to fade anytime soon.
