A federal judge delivered a scathing rebuke to the Trump administration on September 16, 2025, condemning officials for their handling of migrant deportations that placed individuals at risk of torture and death in their home countries.
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan expressed being “alarmed and dismayed by the circumstances under which these removals are being carried out.”
The case involved five plaintiffs from Nigeria and Gambia who had received protection from U.S. immigration judges. These judges had ruled the migrants could not be deported to their home countries because they were “more likely than not” to face persecution, torture, or death upon their return.
Despite these protective rulings, the individuals were deported to Ghana on September 5, 2025, and faced repatriation to their home countries.
One plaintiff, identified as D.A. and married to a U.S. citizen, had previously been tortured by Nigeria’s military and police officers. According to court findings, he was told that if authorities ever saw him again, they would kill him. The migrants were being held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers when they were suddenly woken up, shackled, and placed on a U.S. military cargo plane without being allowed to notify family members or legal counsel.
During the transport, some individuals were placed in straitjackets for up to 16 hours, and at least one person lacked identification documents. The migrants only learned they were being taken to Ghana while aboard the aircraft, despite Ghana not being designated as a potential removal country during their immigration proceedings.
Upon arrival, the individuals were placed in Dema Camp, described as a remote open-air detention facility surrounded by armed military guards. During emergency hearings, Trump administration officials informed the court that the U.S. had reached what Judge Chutkan characterized as a hasty and unwritten agreement with Ghana. The U.S. government received a diplomatic note from Ghana promising that the plaintiffs would not be tortured or taken to a place where they would face torture.
However, Ghana promptly repatriated one of the plaintiffs, who was forced to go into hiding, and announced plans to deport the others to their home countries. Government lawyers acknowledged that Ghana appeared to be violating the assurances it had given the U.S. government but stated that the Trump administration could not prevent the repatriation because the U.S. government did not have the power to tell Ghana what to do.
Judge Chutkan drew parallels between this case and that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador despite a court order preventing his repatriation. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the administration had to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, though both President Trump and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele initially claimed they lacked the power to secure his release.
In her ruling, Judge Chutkan indicated that while the court lacked jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order requiring U.S. officials to halt the repatriation, she was troubled by the administration’s approach. She noted that the court was aware of the dire consequences the migrants faced if repatriated to their home countries and criticized what she termed the government’s “cavalier acceptance” of the risk of torture and persecution.
The judge suggested that, given the similarities to the Abrego Garcia case and other challenged deportations, these actions appeared to be part of a pattern and widespread effort to evade the government’s legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly. Those obligations included providing due process and humane treatment for migrants, according to the ruling.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities and judicial oversight of deportation procedures. While the administration has pursued aggressive deportation policies, federal courts have repeatedly intervened when officials appear to circumvent established legal protections for individuals facing potential persecution in their home countries.
Despite the judge’s criticism, she acknowledged that the court’s hands were tied regarding the specific relief requested. The ruling demonstrates the complex jurisdictional issues that arise when deportation cases involve multiple countries and diplomatic agreements that may not be legally binding or enforceable through U.S. courts.