Phone Chomsavanh walked out of an Eswatini maximum-security prison on Sunday after more than a year behind bars. A Laotian citizen, he had been removed from the United States under the Trump administration’s third-country deportation program. His lawyer, Tin Thanh Nguyen, said Chomsavanh left Eswatini and landed in Johannesburg on his way to Laos, the country he was being deported to. An Eswatini government spokesperson didn’t immediately acknowledge the release.
His case arrives at a delicate moment. Last week, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the administration to keep swiftly removing immigrants to third countries. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments in December.
The Policy and Its Rationale
Chomsavanh was among five immigrants sent to Eswatini in July 2025, during the program’s early days. All five had been convicted of serious crimes in the United States and had served their sentences before officials transferred them to Matsapha Correctional Complex, near the capital, Mbabane.
The administration says the approach lets it quickly remove immigrants who already have final deportation orders when their home countries may not take them back right away. It’s a practical problem: a final order means little if no nation will accept the person named in it. Washington’s third-country model is its answer to that bottleneck.
Around a dozen African countries have accepted deportees. Some took them in exchange for millions of dollars in payments. Eswatini, Africa’s last absolute monarchy, received $5.1 million under its agreement with the administration and has taken in around 30 deportees. Human Rights First and Refugees International, advocacy groups that monitor the deportations, say around 500 immigrants have gone to African countries that aren’t their home nations since the program began last year.
The Legal Pushback
Nguyen didn’t mince words about his client’s treatment. “He had already served his time. Instead they put him on a plane without telling him where it was headed and left him in a prison in a country he had never heard of, where nobody ever accused him of anything,” he said. “He sat there for more than a year. No notice, no hearing, no chance to object. That is not due process by any definition.”
Chomsavanh was born in a refugee camp in Thailand after his parents fled Laos. His family moved to the United States when he was 7, Nguyen said. He had no ties to Eswatini. Nguyen said officials told Chomsavanh the destination only shortly before the military cargo plane landed.
Rights groups and lawyers have sharply criticized the program, and people have brought legal challenges in the United States and some recipient countries. Last month, a U.S. appeals court upheld a judge’s ruling halting the program. The judge found that it didn’t give immigrants facing removal time to challenge deportation to a third country if they feared persecution or torture there.
For now, the Supreme Court’s temporary order changes that picture. The administration can continue removals while the justices consider the question in December.
Transparency Questions
Officials have largely carried out the program in secret, providing little transparency about how many people they’ve deported, where they’re held or the conditions of their detention. That opacity leaves the policy vulnerable. When the public can see how a policy works, the government can more easily defend its lawful authority.
Why This Matters:
The Chomsavanh case brings two legitimate interests into direct conflict: the government’s authority to enforce final removal orders against people convicted of serious crimes, and the procedural guardrails that keep that authority lawful. The Supreme Court will weigh both in December.
The financial arrangements deserve scrutiny, too. Payments like the $5.1 million sent to Eswatini turn deportation into a line item, and taxpayers are entitled to know what they’re buying. The justices’ ruling will shape whether the executive branch can rely on this tool and what notice and hearing requirements it must build in. A clear, durable rule would serve enforcement and fairness better than a patchwork of emergency orders.