A federal judge delivered a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration on September 16, 2025, condemning what she called the government’s “cavalier acceptance” of the risk that deported migrants would face torture or death upon their return to their home countries.
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan expressed alarm over the circumstances surrounding the deportation of five migrants from Nigeria and Gambia, despite immigration judges having ruled that the individuals were “more likely than not” to face persecution, torture, or death if returned to their home countries.
The five plaintiffs, identified only by their initials for fear of persecution, were nevertheless deported to Ghana and are now being repatriated to their home countries. One man, identified as D.A. and married to a U.S. citizen, had been tortured by Nigeria’s military and police officers, who told him they would kill him if they ever saw him again, according to court findings.
On September 5, 2025, the migrants were awakened at Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, shackled, and placed on a U.S. military cargo plane without being allowed to notify their families or legal counsel. Some were placed in straitjackets for up to 16 hours, and at least one did not have any identification documents.
During the flight, the migrants learned they were being taken to Ghana, which was not designated as a potential removal country during their immigration proceedings. They arrived at Dema Camp, a remote open-air detention facility surrounded by armed military guards, where they were told they would be repatriated.
In emergency hearings, Trump administration officials told the court that the U.S. had reached what appears to be 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 be tortured.
However, Ghana promptly repatriated one of the plaintiffs, who has been forced to go into hiding, and announced plans to deport the others to their home countries. Lawyers for the government 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 does not have the power to tell Ghana what to do.
Judge Chutkan wrote that while the court lacked jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order to halt the repatriation, leaving the court’s “hands are tied,” she noted that the court “does not reach this conclusion lightly.”
The judge indicated she was aware of the dire consequences the plaintiffs faced if repatriated and expressed alarm and dismay by the circumstances under which these removals were being carried out. She specifically criticized the government’s cavalier acceptance of the plaintiffs’ ultimate transfer to countries where they face torture and persecution.
Chutkan drew parallels between this case and that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting his repatriation. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the Trump administration had to facilitate his return, though both President Trump and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele initially claimed they did not have the power to release him.
The judge ruled that the court could not order the U.S. government to order a foreign government to take any action, despite facts in the record indicating that the agreement may have been designed to evade the defendants’ obligations to the plaintiffs. These obligations included providing due process and humane treatment for migrants.
Given the similarities to the Abrego Garcia case and other deportations that have been challenged in court, Chutkan indicated 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 noted that U.S. officials appeared to have engaged in a widespread effort to deny the migrants their due process rights.
The Daily Beast reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive an immediate response. The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies and federal court oversight of deportation procedures involving individuals who face potential persecution in their home countries.
