A federal judge sharply criticized the Trump administration on September 15, 2025, for what she described as the government’s “cavalier acceptance” of the potential dangers deported migrants might encounter, including torture or death, upon returning to their native countries.
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan expressed serious concern about the deportation of five migrants from Nigeria and Gambia. This occurred despite immigration judges determining that these individuals were “more likely than not” to experience persecution, torture, or death if sent back to their home countries.
The five plaintiffs, referred to by their initials due to fear of persecution, were deported to Ghana and are now in the process of being returned to their home nations. One individual, identified as D.A., who is married to a U.S. citizen, was reportedly tortured by Nigerian military and police officers who threatened his life if they encountered him again, according to court documents.
On September 5, 2025, the migrants were taken from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, shackled, and boarded onto a U.S. military cargo plane without being allowed to contact their families or lawyers. Some were restrained in straitjackets for up to 16 hours, and at least one lacked identification papers.
During their flight, they discovered their destination was Ghana, a country not initially discussed in their immigration proceedings as a removal location. They arrived at Dema Camp, an isolated open-air detention center surrounded by armed guards, where they were informed about their repatriation plans.
In emergency court proceedings, Trump administration officials stated that the U.S. had an informal and rapid agreement with Ghana. The U.S. received a diplomatic note from Ghana assuring that the plaintiffs would not be tortured or sent to places where they could be tortured.
However, Ghana quickly repatriated one plaintiff who has since gone into hiding, and announced intentions to deport the others to their original countries. Government lawyers admitted that Ghana seemed to be breaching the assurances given to the U.S., but noted that the Trump administration could not stop the repatriation since the U.S. cannot dictate actions to Ghana.
Judge Chutkan noted that while the court lacked jurisdiction to grant a temporary restraining order to stop the repatriation, and that the court’s “hands are tied,” she emphasized that the court “does not reach this conclusion lightly.”
The judge acknowledged the severe risks faced by the plaintiffs if repatriated and expressed concern over the manner in which these deportations were executed. She specifically criticized the government’s indifferent acceptance of the plaintiffs’ transfer to countries where they face significant dangers.
Chutkan compared this situation to that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a court order preventing his removal. The Supreme Court later mandated the Trump administration facilitate his return, although both President Trump and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele initially argued they lacked the authority to release him.
The judge stated that the court could not require the U.S. government to direct a foreign government to act, even though the record suggested the agreement might have been crafted to circumvent the defendants’ responsibilities to the plaintiffs. These responsibilities included ensuring due process and humane treatment for migrants.
Considering the parallels to the Abrego Garcia case and other contested deportations, Chutkan suggested that these deportations seemed to be a pattern and part of a larger effort to sidestep the government’s legal duties by indirect means. She noted that U.S. officials appeared to undertake extensive efforts to deny the migrants their due process rights.