In September, a federal judge condemned the deportation of a group of migrants from West Africa to Ghana, saying the government had acted outside established procedures.

The group had been placed on a list for “fast-track deportation” without full hearings in immigration courts. The judge noted that such practice may violate non-refoulement — the ban on deporting people to places of persecution and danger. This criticism was a rare judicial challenge, questioning the legality of the administration’s fast-track procedures and highlighting the conflict between political demands for speed and the duty to follow legal rules.

According to TRAC, the backlog last month was at a record 3.5 million cases, with an average wait time of four years for a hearing. This backlog is often used to justify fast deportations. But in the West African case, the judge pointed out that the decision came at the cost of denying basic rights.

The special feature of this case is that migrants were excluded from the normal process without any explanation. According to reporting and court papers, some of them had open appeals and motions that should have stopped removal. This led the judge to say the practice created a risk of a “systemic bypass of rules.”

The judge relied on two main arguments. The first is that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows expedited deportation only in limited cases, such as for arrests near the border without an asylum claim. In this case, the migrants had lived in the U.S. for months or even years, which rules out the use of such procedures. The second argument was based on the 1951 Refugee Convention and the principle of non-refoulement, which bans removal to dangerous places while cases are still open.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had also considered similar questions. In the 2020 case Thuraissigiam v. DHS, the court allowed fast-track deportation but stressed that basic guarantees must remain.

The situation today shows the blurred line between lawful and unlawful deportation. It reflects the political course of the new administration, where Africa became a convenient target. The political calculation is to present fast deportations as proof that the system is “working” without delays. In this logic, sacrificing legal process for speed is justified by the image of strength in an election campaign.

Texas and Florida remain the main arenas for debates. Texas handles almost half of all immigration hearings in the country. And in Florida, fast-track removals are part of Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) campaign against illegal immigrants.

Expedited deportations, run by military lawyers and governed by quick procedures, are becoming standard. This is creating a mixture between justice and politics. Plans to use this model in more states, such as California and Arizona, show how it can easily expand. This risks a new crisis by replacing fair legal processes with force.

The story of deportations to Ghana shows one thing: The crisis of the immigration system cannot be solved by militarization or by breaking procedures. By turning these cases into a political tool, the administration is sidelining immigrants’ legal rights.

Artem Kolisnichenko writes on crime, immigration, and border policy across the American South and Southwest.