In a blistering rebuke of Donald Trump’s immigration policy, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan delivered a scathing ruling this week, slamming the president’s administration for what she described as a “cavalier acceptance” of the fact that deported migrants are “more likely than not” to face persecution, torture, or even death.
The case centered around five plaintiffs—identified only by their initials for safety reasons—who were deported to Ghana and subsequently repatriated to their countries of origin. According to court documents, these individuals were denied due process and forcibly removed from the U.S. despite credible threats to their safety.
Chutkan, who previously presided over the now-dismissed federal election interference case against Trump, made it clear that her court is deeply disturbed by the administration’s disregard for human life and legal rights.
“It is aware of the dire consequences Plaintiffs face if they are repatriated,” she wrote. “And it is 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. But its hands are tied.”
That phrase—“its hands are tied”—ran like a thread through the ruling, underscoring how even the judiciary can be rendered powerless in the face of brutal policy execution.
Chutkan pointed out that for over thirty years, through five different presidencies, the U.S. had honored its legal and moral obligation to treat refugees humanely. That changed under Trump.
“For over three decades, through five presidential administrations, this country has adhered to its obligations to treat refugees humanely and to comply with the Constitutional requirement of due process, which is afforded to all persons present in this country, regardless of their citizenship status,” Chutkan wrote.
But now, she warned, those norms are being bulldozed.
“In recent months, the government has embarked upon a series of deportations which signal a drastic change of course,” she said. “In several cases, authorities have rounded up — often at night and with little or no notice — men, women, and children being held in detention facilities, hastily put them on planes and transferred them to other countries, where they have no connections, do not speak the language, and are unable to contact family or counsel. This case involves a similar scenario.”
The judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order to halt the deportations—not because she didn’t want to, but because she said she couldn’t under the law. Still, her ruling stands as a rare and forceful condemnation of immigration tactics that, in her view, cross the line from policy into cruelty.
“The court does not reach this conclusion lightly,” she wrote.
This isn’t just another case about immigration technicalities. This is about real people, denied basic rights and forcibly sent into danger—and a judge calling it what it is.
Chutkan’s ruling is more than just legal opinion; it’s a warning. One that calls out not just what happened, but what it represents: a sharp turn away from decades of due process and human decency.
Read the full ruling here.
