Judge denies relief to men Trump admin sent to Ghana in questioned agreement

The lawsuit alleges the "purpose" of the Ghana deportations is to have Ghana send the men to countries where the U.S. could not legally send them directly.

The Trump administration again appears to be ignoring federal and international law in an effort to send people to countries that the U.S. could not deport them to directly. As of Monday night, however, a federal judge is yet to rule on an emergency request filed on Friday seeking an order that the U.S. work with Ghana — where the Trump administration send the people — to prevent that from happening.

[Update, 11:45 p.m.: U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied emergency relief to men the Trump administration sent to Ghana who appear likely to be—and one already has been—sent to countries where they face persecution or torture and where the U.S. could not have sent them directly.

Highlighting the differences between this case and the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Chutkan found that she lacked jurisdiction to order the relief they were requesting because, she wrote, “This court cannot order the U.S. government to order a foreign government to take any action, despite facts in the record indicating that this agreement may have been designed to evade Defendants’ obligations to Plaintiffs.”]

Ten days ago, in the middle of the night, the Trump administration sent more than a dozen people to Ghana, at least five of whom had no ties to the country. Further, the five had immigration orders preventing them from being sent to their home country due to risk of torture or persecution. Within a week, however, one of the men was allegedly sent to his country of origin, prompting a lawsuit filed on September 12 by all five, with the four remaining in Ghana citing a fear that similar treatment is imminent for them as well.

According to the filings in the case, the men were awoken in the middle of the night and “secreted” away to Ghana — with “several” of the men placed in straightjackets for more than a dozen hours. They were taken to “an open-air detention facility“ in Ghana, per the complaint, and placed “in squalid conditions and surrounded by armed military guards.”

One, a bisexual man who had previously been “granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture” — barring the U.S. from sending him to his country of origin — was removed by Ghana to his country of origin, “where he is in hiding for fear of his life.”

In a temporary restraining order request filed on September 12, the lawyers for the men argued that the Trump administration “removed Plaintiffs to Ghana specifically to effectuate Plaintiffs’ eventual removal from Ghana to their countries of origin, where Plaintiffs fear persecution and torture. Defendants undertook this process with the purpose of circumventing U.S. and international law, which bars refoulement of persons, like Plaintiffs, who have been granted immigration relief by U.S. immigration courts.”

After two hearings, including one over the weekend; a follow-up emergency request for temporary relief; disputes over multiple documents that the Trump administration was not sharing with the plaintiffs’ lawyers, let alone the public; and significant happenings off the docket, there is still no order from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, as of 8:00 p.m. Monday.

The Ghana portion of the administration’s cruel and often illegal removal policies began just a few days after a federal judge temporarily stopped the Trump administration from sending unaccompanied children to Guatemala — a move that remains blocked while the court considers the request made by the lawyers for the children.

In the Ghana case, the administration’s actions and arguments raise several questions — echoing those made, unsuccessfully, by the administration proviously.

In a Sunday night filing, the lawyers for the five men challenging this action argued that “the Supreme Court, Chief Judge Boasberg, and the Fourth Circuit have all, in conceptually identical situations, required the government to make an effort to prevent harm.to individuals detained in foreign countries As in those cases, Plaintiffs recognize that this Court cannot dictate the precise steps Defendants must take, nor can it dictate the outcome of those efforts” — referencing cases involving people sent to El Salvador’s CECOT prison.

The lawyers also noted that they are seeking “even more modest“ relied here because “for purposes of this interim relief Plaintiffs are not seeking full return to the United States, but simply that the status quo be frozen, so they at least not be removed to their countries of origin.”

When the Justice Department responded, it argued that this case is not controlled by those cases but by the U.S. Supreme Court’s order staying the district court’s injunction in the D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security case over the procedural protections required for third-country removals — deportation to a country other than a person’s country of origin or another country where they have legal status — like these men’s removal to Ghana.

“Plaintiffs—all D.V.D. class members—now file a motion for temporary restraining order seeking that this Court issue relief emanating from what Plaintiffs allege was an unlawful third country removal,” the DOJ lawyers wrote.

On Monday, with no order from Chutkan, the lawyers for the challengers highlighted that cell access for the men had been cut off — which they had been using to communicate with counsel — and that they remained in Ghana but that they understood their further removal remained imminent.

“The Court still has time to enter a Temporary Restraining Order to preserve the status quo,” the lawyers noted.

The filing — including a declaration from the wife of one of the men — was a plea.

As of 6:41 p.m. Monday, per the latest filing from the lawyers, the four men remain in the Ghana detention camp.