A U.S. federal judge has sharply criticized the Trump administration for what she described as an attempt to skirt America’s legal responsibilities toward migrants facing persecution and torture. The rebuke came after the U.S. government deported a group of African nationals to Ghana, a move that has triggered widespread legal and human rights concerns.
During an emergency hearing on Saturday, September 13, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan demanded that federal officials explain by 9 p.m. EST the steps being taken to ensure that deported migrants are not forced back to their countries of origin, where they risk severe harm. Chutkan accused the administration of conducting an “end-run” around established protections under both U.S. law and international agreements.
Earlier in the month, more than a dozen migrants — including nationals from Gambia and Nigeria — were deported to Ghana. Ghana’s government confirmed accepting them at Washington’s request, effectively making it part of a controversial “third country” transfer strategy. Under this arrangement, the U.S. relocates deportees to a country that is not their homeland, in theory as a protective measure. But attorneys argue that these deportees have instead been confined in harsh conditions in Ghana, described in court filings as “squalid” and “surrounded by armed military guards” in an open-air detention facility.
The legal challenge, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), warns that several of the migrants are at imminent risk of being sent back to their native countries as early as Monday. According to the lawsuit, this would directly violate rulings by U.S. immigration judges that had barred their removal due to credible threats of persecution and torture. One Gambian man, identified by his lawyers as bisexual, has reportedly already been returned to Gambia, heightening fears for his safety.
At the core of the case are protections under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and a U.S. statute known as “withholding of removal.” These provisions forbid the U.S. from deporting individuals to countries where they face torture or persecution, although they do permit relocation to third-party nations. However, human rights advocates argue that the Ghana transfers are being used as a loophole to circumvent these obligations, effectively outsourcing deportation in violation of international norms.
The Justice Department’s attorney did not dispute that Ghana intends to repatriate some of the deportees to their countries of origin, acknowledging that this would contradict diplomatic assurances allegedly made to the U.S. government. Still, the lawyer insisted that Washington cannot control Ghana’s actions, a stance that visibly frustrated Judge Chutkan.
“How’s this not a violation of your obligation?” Chutkan pressed, suggesting that the U.S. government could intervene more directly. She floated options including retrieving the migrants, relocating them to a genuinely safe third country, or holding Ghana accountable for breaching its promises. Her remarks underscored deep skepticism about the administration’s handling of the deportations, which she suggested may have been deliberately structured to bypass the law.
Yet, Chutkan also admitted the limits of her authority, conceding that since the migrants are no longer in U.S. custody or territory, her power to issue binding remedies may be constrained. She noted that any aggressive order requiring government action would likely be paused by the Supreme Court.
Despite these challenges, the court’s intervention was praised by advocates. Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney representing the deportees, welcomed Chutkan’s directive: “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,” he said.
The dispute comes amid the Trump administration’s broader strategy of negotiating with countries worldwide to accept deportees who are not their own citizens. Recent agreements have been struck with nations such as El Salvador, Kosovo, Panama, and South Sudan, all aimed at advancing the administration’s aggressive immigration agenda. Critics argue that these arrangements undermine international refugee protections and put vulnerable migrants at grave risk.
As the case unfolds, the fate of the deportees in Ghana remains uncertain, but the ruling signals heightened judicial scrutiny of U.S. deportation policies and raises profound questions about America’s adherence to international human rights commitments.
