A U.S. federal judge has ruled that she cannot stop the deportation of four West African men from Ghana to their countries of origin, even though U.S. immigration judges previously determined that the individuals faced the risk of torture or persecution if returned home. The decision represents a legal victory for the Trump administration’s hardline immigration strategy, which has sought alternative ways to proceed with removals despite international conventions.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, presiding in Washington, expressed concern that the government was effectively sidestepping the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Nevertheless, she stated that her “hands are tied,” making clear that she lacked the legal authority to intervene. In a strongly worded opinion, Chutkan wrote that she was “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.”
The ruling clears the path for the deportation of 14 West Africans from Ghana, including the four covered in her decision. Most of those individuals are expected to be sent to Nigeria and The Gambia, despite earlier findings by U.S. immigration courts that returning them to their home countries would expose them to severe danger. Chutkan emphasized that the case reflects a broader pattern in which the Trump administration has used third-country transfers as a way to bypass legal restrictions.
She contrasted the situation with that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador and subsequently detained in prison there. Unlike in Garcia’s case, Chutkan noted, the U.S. government could legally send the men to Ghana first, thereby shielding the administration from direct accountability for their ultimate return to their home countries.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the migrants’ lawsuit, criticized the ruling and urged the administration to abide by international and domestic legal obligations. Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, said: “We are obviously disappointed by the ruling but there’s no reason why the administration should require a court to tell them to obey the laws prohibiting the transfer of individuals to countries where it’s likely they will be tortured and persecuted.”
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately issue a statement in response to the ruling. Lawyers representing the four men insisted that they were still being held in Ghana as of Monday, contradicting claims by Ghanaian officials. Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Ghana’s Minister for Government Communications, told The Associated Press that all 14 individuals — 13 Nigerians and one Gambian — “have since left for their home countries.”
The Trump administration has been expanding the practice of deporting migrants to third countries that have signed agreements with Washington, even when U.S. judges rule against direct repatriation. Ghana is among several African nations, including Eswatini, Rwanda, and South Sudan, that have accepted deportees under these arrangements.
The lawsuit brought on behalf of the migrants alleged mistreatment, stating that they were forced into “straitjackets” during a 16-hour flight to Ghana and subsequently held in “squalid conditions.” The complaint accused Ghana of carrying out the Trump administration’s “dirty work” by facilitating the removals.
Ghana’s Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa rejected suggestions that the country’s role signaled alignment with Trump’s immigration policies. He stressed that Ghana did not receive any financial incentive from the U.S., stating: “We just could not continue to take the suffering of our fellow West Africans. For now, the strict understanding that we have with the Americans is that we are only going to take West Africans.”
Nigeria, meanwhile, raised objections to the process. Officials in Abuja said they were not informed beforehand that their citizens would first be deported to Ghana. Kimebi Imomotimi Ebienfa, spokesperson for Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, clarified the country’s stance: “We have not rejected Nigerians deported to Nigeria. What we have only rejected is deportation of other nationals into Nigeria.”
The case underscores the growing controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s use of third-country agreements as a workaround to deport individuals who have been legally recognized as at risk of persecution — a policy that continues to draw criticism from human rights groups and international observers.
