The U.S. immigration court system is currently grappling with a severe reduction in its judicial workforce, experiencing a 25% decrease in judges compared to the previous year. This substantial decline, resulting from a combination of terminations and resignations, has led to an alarming backlog of nearly 4 million cases. These shifts are indicative of a larger administrative strategy to overhaul the immigration judicial process, with a stated emphasis on accelerating deportations. Such changes have sparked considerable apprehension among former judicial personnel and court staff, who voice concerns regarding the erosion of judicial independence and the fundamental principles of due process.
This ongoing personnel crisis within the U.S. immigration courts has profound implications for the fairness and efficiency of the legal proceedings. The pressure to expedite cases, coupled with a depleted workforce, risks compromising the thorough review and impartial judgment essential to immigration law. As the administration continues to pursue its objectives, the long-term effects on the integrity of the immigration system and the rights of individuals seeking legal status remain a significant point of debate and concern for many legal professionals and human rights advocates.
The Shrinking Ranks of Immigration Judges
Over the past year, the number of immigration judges in the United States has decreased by approximately one-fourth, primarily due to numerous firings and resignations. This significant reduction has left many courts severely understaffed, with some operating on minimal personnel and two courts entirely devoid of judges. The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has also seen a loss of over 400 support staff, including legal assistants and advisors. This ongoing depletion of critical resources exacerbates existing backlogs and strains the entire system, raising serious questions about the capacity of the courts to manage their immense caseloads effectively and maintain a functional due process environment. The situation underscores a challenging period for the nation's immigration judiciary, as both remaining staff and those who have departed express deep concern over the future of fair and timely legal proceedings.
The current situation has created immense pressure on the remaining judicial and administrative staff within the immigration courts. Former judges, like Amiena Khan, who was terminated from her supervisory role in Manhattan, describe the dismissals as a clear message from the administration to prioritize mass deportations. This sentiment is echoed by others who left their positions due to discomfort with new policies perceived to undermine judicial independence. The drastic reduction in judges and support staff directly contributes to a burgeoning case backlog, which currently stands at nearly 4 million. This not only burdens the system but also compromises the ability of individuals to receive fair and timely hearings, leading to widespread concern among legal professionals about the integrity and impartiality of the immigration justice system. The impact is particularly acute in smaller courts, where the loss of even one or two judges can bring operations to a near standstill, severely affecting the administration of justice for thousands of cases.
Administrative Restructuring and Its Consequences
The Trump administration's restructuring of immigration courts began in early 2025 with significant leadership changes at the EOIR, followed by the termination of numerous judges, initially targeting those in their probationary periods. This policy expanded to include tenured judges and other Department of Justice employees, leading to widespread concern and demoralization among staff. Former San Francisco judge Arwen Swink highlighted that these actions send a clear message to remaining judges to align with administrative interpretations of the law, potentially undermining fundamental fairness. Despite the Department of Justice's defense of these decisions as necessary to restore integrity and national security, claiming enhanced productivity, the severe personnel cuts have resulted in increased case backlogs and a crisis of morale, with many believing the core mission of justice has shifted towards expedited deportation.
The administrative changes have drastically altered the work environment in immigration courts nationwide. Judges and staff report a climate of intimidation and pressure to conform to new directives prioritizing rapid deportations over meticulous due process. The sight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents making arrests within court premises and clashing with protesters outside has been particularly distressing for court personnel, who are expected to remain neutral amidst such chaos. The Department of Homeland Security's active recruitment campaign for "deportation judges" further reinforces the perceived shift in judicial priorities. This aggressive hiring strategy, often drawing from ICE and other DHS backgrounds, signals a clear intent to reshape the judiciary's approach to immigration cases. Instances, such as the removal of Judge Christopher Day for granting asylum at a higher rate, exemplify the administration's intolerance for judicial decisions that do not align with its enforcement agenda, further eroding the principles of independence and impartiality within the immigration court system.