A federal judge on Monday criticized the Trump administration for deliberately disregarding legal obligations and placing immigrants at risk of “persecution, torture, or death” in their native countries.

In a 16-page memorandum opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, appointed by Barack Obama, criticized the federal government for its recent “illegal” deportation practices. However, she stopped short of ruling in favor of the five West African men who had filed their lawsuit just days before.

On Sept. 5, the plaintiffs were taken from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention, placed on a military cargo plane where they remained for almost a day alongside others, and subsequently dispatched to Ghana — a West African nation that recently finalized a third-country deportation agreement with the Trump administration.

On Sept. 12, the five men, none of whom are Ghanaian nationals, filed suit—claiming breaches of the Convention Against Torture (CAT), constitutional due process rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In the quickly-fashioned order, the court bristled at the behavior exhibited by immigration officials in the present case — and in others like it.

“Defendants’ actions in this case appear to disregard or act in defiance of their obligations to ensure due process for individuals present in the United States and to treat those subject to removal with humanity,” the opinion states. “These actions also seem to be part of a broader effort to undermine the government’s legal responsibilities by engaging in actions indirectly that it cannot pursue directly. These concerns are not speculative, and this case is not an outlier; it’s not the first instance where plaintiffs claim that the government has deported or attempted to deport them without notice or the ability to contact family or legal counsel.”

The judge further outlined several instances where the Trump administration contravened court orders regarding deportations — notably including high-profile cases like the Kilmar Abrego Garcia situation and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, which significantly curtailed the government’s application of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations.

Chutkan, however, bemoaned the facts on the ground as particularly prohibitive in the case of these particular plaintiffs — one of whom has already been removed from Ghana and four of whom are currently at the mercy of Ghanaian officials with a “final destination” of Nigeria or The Gambia.

Due to this state of affairs, if the foreign government in question is apparently calling the shots, the court says, “its hands are tied.”

Specifically, Chutkan determined the court does not have the jurisdiction to do what the plaintiffs are asking. While the judge said courts can issue orders to maintain jurisdiction where there is a “substantial jurisdictional question,” here, “there is no question.”

The plaintiffs, for their part, asked the court to order the Trump administration to instruct Ghanaian authority to keep them in Ghana or “to notify the Ghanaian government not to remove Plaintiffs to their countries of origin or other countries where they fear persecution or torture.”

Such requests, the judge determined, were essentially a matter of foreign affairs and thus “largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.”

Chutkan also contrasted the facts with one of her earlier references to the documented perfidy and law-breaking of the Trump administration in the immigration realm.

“Here, unlike Abrego Garcia’s case, Defendants do not concede that Plaintiffs were improperly removed to Ghana—to the contrary, they argue that Plaintiffs were properly sent there pursuant to an agreement with Ghana, which agreed to take them,” the opinion continues.

Still, the judge said the record before the court looked something not entirely unlike an effort to violate the law – especially the CAT. And as to each plaintiff’s story, at least, Chutkan did not balk.

From the opinion, at length:

[A]fter an extensive immigration process, a U.S. immigration judge found that Plaintiffs had shown that they were more likely than not to face persecution, torture, or death if they were returned to their home countries. One Plaintiff, D.A., who is also married to a U.S. citizen, fled his country after being tortured by the military and police officers who told him that if they ever saw him again, they would kill him. The immigration court found that he, like the other Plaintiffs, was entitled to protection by the United States.

“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,” the opinion goes on. “The court does not reach this conclusion lightly. It is aware of the dire consequences Plaintiffs face if they are repatriated. 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.”