A federal district judge delivered a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration on September 16, 2025, expressing alarm over the government’s handling of five migrants who were deported despite court protections and face potential torture or death in their home countries of Nigeria and Gambia.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled that while her court lacked jurisdiction to halt the deportations, she was “alarmed and dismayed by the circumstances under which these removals are being carried out.” The judge condemned what she characterized as the administration’s cavalier acceptance of the risk that the migrants would face persecution upon their return.
U.S. immigration judges had previously ruled that the five plaintiffs, identified only by initials for security reasons, could not be deported to their home countries because they were more likely than not to face persecution, torture, or death. Despite these protections, the migrants were deported to Ghana and are now being repatriated to Nigeria and Gambia.
On September 5, 2025, the migrants were awakened at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, shackled, and placed on a U.S. military cargo plane without being allowed to contact family or legal counsel. Some were placed in straitjackets for up to 16 hours, and at least one lacked identification documents. Only during the flight did they learn their destination was Ghana, which had not been designated as a potential removal country during their immigration proceedings.
One plaintiff, identified as D.A. and married to a U.S. citizen, had been tortured by Nigeria’s military and police officers and was told he would be killed if authorities saw him again. The migrants arrived at Dema Camp, a remote open-air detention facility surrounded by armed military guards, where they were informed of plans for repatriation to their home countries.
During emergency hearings, Trump administration officials acknowledged reaching what Chutkan described as a hasty and unwritten agreement with Ghana. The U.S. government received diplomatic assurances from Ghana promising the plaintiffs would not be tortured or taken to places where torture would occur. However, Ghana promptly repatriated one plaintiff, forcing him into hiding, and announced plans to deport the others.
Government lawyers conceded that Ghana appeared to be violating the assurances given to the U.S. government but maintained the Trump administration could not prevent the repatriation because the U.S. government does not have the power to tell Ghana what to do. Judge Chutkan noted the striking similarities to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison despite a court order preventing his repatriation.
The judge determined that the deportations 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. She indicated that these obligations included providing due process and humane treatment for migrants. Chutkan emphasized that while the court could not order the U.S. government to compel foreign government action, the circumstances suggested an agreement designed to circumvent defendants’ obligations to the plaintiffs.
The ruling highlighted the administration’s failure to coordinate meaningfully with state and local officials and its coaching of federal law enforcement agencies on language to use when requesting assistance. Judge Chutkan noted that while the original deportation to Ghana was agreed upon by all parties as proper, it was the subsequent removal to home countries that violated court protections.
This case represents part of broader legal challenges to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement practices. The administration has faced multiple court rulings on deportation cases, with judges frequently citing concerns about due process violations and the safety of individuals being removed from the United States.
The judge’s ruling underscores the tension between executive immigration enforcement and judicial oversight, particularly in cases where individuals have been granted specific protections based on credible threats they face in their home countries. While Chutkan acknowledged her court’s jurisdictional limitations in ordering foreign governments to take specific actions, her decision documented what she viewed as systematic efforts to circumvent established legal protections for vulnerable migrants./
