Judge orders Trump administration to detail how it will prevent Ghana from relocating migrants

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration Saturday to explain how it is trying to prevent Ghana from sending a group of African migrants onward to other countries in contravention of U.S. court orders that bar deportation to their home nations.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said it appeared the government was making an "end run" around domestic court rulings by transferring five African immigrants to Ghana, which she said was poised to relocate them to countries where they could face torture or death. One of the plaintiffs has already been flown from Ghana to his native Gambia, Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union told the court. Chutkan ordered the government to file a declaration by 9 p.m. Eastern that night detailing the steps it is taking to ensure Ghana will not send the immigrants to their countries of origin.

During a Friday court appearance, Department of Justice attorney Elianis Perez told Chutkan that Ghana had pledged it would not transfer the migrants to their home countries. Perez also argued the court lacked authority to dictate how a foreign government treats deportees. Chutkan rejected the notion that the United States could disclaim responsibility in the face of a plausible plan to circumvent judicial orders, saying: "What does the government intend to do? And please don’t tell me you don’t have any control over Ghana because I know that."

Gelernt told the judge the situation resembled past incidents in which the government removed people despite court restrictions. He compared the matter to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting the removal. After multiple courts directed the government to "facilitate" his return, Abrego Garcia was eventually brought back to the United States and now faces human trafficking charges and renewed deportation efforts.

Chutkan’s order came against the backdrop of a Supreme Court ruling this summer that allowed the administration to continue transferring migrants to countries that are not their country of origin even when those migrants had not been given an opportunity to raise fears of torture. The judge’s questions focused on whether the administration's use of third countries effectively nullifies domestic court protections for migrants who have established credible fears of persecution or torture if returned to their home states.

The case centers on five African migrants who U.S. courts have found should not be returned directly to their countries of origin. Government lawyers have pursued transfers that place migrants first in a third country with which the United States has diplomatic ties; opponents of the practice have argued such transfers can result in subsequent removals to dangerous destinations and are being used to evade judicial constraints.

The Justice Department told the court that Ghana had given assurances the migrants would not be sent on to their home countries. The government has argued such assurances and diplomatic engagement are the proper tools for preventing unlawful returns, and it has cited the Supreme Court decision as support for its practice of transferring migrants through third countries. The ACLU and other advocates counter that diplomatic assurances have proven unreliable and that domestic courts must be able to enforce their orders.

Chutkan’s deadline required the administration to produce a declaration by 9 p.m. Eastern on Saturday laying out how it is ensuring compliance with U.S. court orders. The filings will be part of ongoing litigation over the government's removal practices and how those practices interact with court orders designed to protect migrants who face torture, death or other serious harm if returned to their home countries.

The order does not immediately halt transfers but places new judicial scrutiny on the government's use of third-country transfers in cases where U.S. courts have intervened. The case is continuing before Chutkan, and further filings and hearings are expected as the parties litigate whether diplomatic assurances and other measures adequately protect migrants and comply with court orders.