After Donald Trump assumed power, the US immigration court system went through a dramatic transformation, according to accounts from judges who served during his administration. What was once considered as a system balancing enforcement with due process, many say, moved toward an aggressive deportation.
More than a dozen federal immigration judges told The New York Times, they were pushed to accelerate deportation orders or risk disciplinary action and potential removal from their roles. The accounts explain a workplace climate where judicial independence was increasingly constrained by administrative directives tied to the administration’s immigration agenda.
Judges explain pressure and fear inside courtrooms
Judges reported feeling that their decisions were no longer solely guided by legal merit but by expectations set from above. “Judges are used as ‘puppets for the administration with a singular goal of deporting as many people as possible as quickly as possible,’” said Shuting Chen, an immigration judge who was fired in November to The New York Times.
The sense of unease extended across the system. “All of us are looking over our shoulders,” immigration judge Holly D’Andrea, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told The Times.
Unlike federal judges, immigration judges operate under the Department of Justice, placing them within the executive branch. Critics argue this structure made it easier for political priorities to shape courtroom outcomes during the Trump administration.
Following Trump’s inauguration, the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review introduced policies that reshaped courtroom procedures. Judges were instructed to grant motions from government lawyers to dismiss certain cases this effectively exposed immigrants to immediate arrest and removal.
In parallel, longstanding practices around bond were disrupted. Judges were told to deny bond to immigrants who crossed the border illegally, regardless of how long they had lived in the United States or whether they had criminal records. This led to prolonged detention periods for many individuals awaiting hearings.
The changes also manifested physically in courthouses, where masked federal agents were reported to be waiting in hallways to detain immigrants immediately after their hearings concluded.
Mass departures
The administration’s approach coincided with a reduction in the number of immigration judges. On Trump’s first day in office, the Justice Department dismissed the acting head of the immigration court system along with several top officials.
In the months that followed, more than 100 judges left their positions, through firings, forced exits, resignations, or retirements. Major purges in cities like New York and San Francisco intensified concerns. In San Francisco, nearly half of the court’s judges were removed, ultimately leading to the closure of the main courthouse. “It’s a dismantling of the court system,” fired San Francisco judge Jeremiah Johnson told The Times.
The number of immigration judges dropped by roughly 16 percent in less than a year straining a system already burdened with more than three million pending cases.
New hires and shifting outcomes in asylum cases
To fill the gaps, the administration tweaked the hiring criteria, allowing “any attorney” to serve as a temporary immigration judge. The Department of Defense also authorised up to 600 military lawyers to assist in handling the backlog of cases.
Nearly 150 new judges, including military lawyers and former Department of Homeland Security prosecutors, were appointed. The impact of these changes became evident in court outcomes.
Asylum approval rates dropped sharply. While judges who left their roles had granted asylum in about 46 percent of cases, those who remained approved only around 15 percent. Newly appointed judges granted asylum in roughly 6 percent of cases, marking a historic low.
Concerns over the process
Judges and advocates have raised alarms that due process protections weakened significantly during this period. A proposed rule change at the Board of Immigration Appeals could further limit the review of cases, effectively streamlining deportations.
At the same time, internal pressure reportedly extended to bond decisions. Chief immigration judge Teresa Riley required judges to justify bond approvals, with supervisors alerted each time bond was granted. One judge described the “pressure to deny bond is overt.”
Legal controversies also emerged around enforcement practices. In federal court, US Attorney Jay Clayton admitted that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had incorrectly stated that arrests inside immigration courts were permitted under a Trump-era memo.
The consequences of these policies have been visible in court corridors across the country. Immigrants attending hearings have been detained immediately afterward, often in front of family members.
In New York, some individuals were transferred to detention centers in Texas and Louisiana, where they remained for months. Scenes of families parting in tears outside courtrooms have become emblematic of the system’s transformation.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, immigration, or tax advice. Immigration laws and government policies are subject to frequent change without notice. While we strive to provide accurate updates, readers are strongly advised to verify the latest requirements with the official embassy, consulate, or government portal of the respective country. Financial Express is not responsible for any decisions made based on this information. For personalized guidance, please consult a qualified immigration attorney or a certified professional advisor.