In a move that has sent shockwaves through the US legal system, the Trump administration is actively exploring a radical plan to bypass traditional judicial appointments. The proposal would see military lawyers installed as immigration judges, a strategy explicitly designed to accelerate the deportation process.
According to a memo obtained by The Guardian, the administration is frustrated by the current pace of immigration courts and views this as a way to decisively clear the massive backlog of cases. The plan would leverage a rarely used legal authority to make these appointments outside the standard Department of Justice procedures.
A 'Politicisation' of Justice
Legal experts and former officials have reacted with alarm, branding the scheme a dangerous politicisation of the judiciary. The independence of immigration judges is considered a cornerstone of a fair system, ensuring decisions are made based on law and evidence, not political pressure.
Critics argue that military lawyers, while highly skilled, are trained within a chain-of-command culture fundamentally at odds with the impartial role of a judge. There are profound concerns that their primary mission would be seen as enforcing administration policy rather than dispensing independent justice.
Bypassing the Backlog
The administration's focus is squarely on efficiency. The immigration court backlog has ballooned to over 3 million cases, meaning many individuals wait years for a decision on their fate. This proposal is framed internally as an emergency measure to tackle what the White House calls a 'national crisis.'
However, immigrant rights advocates warn that speed would come at the cost of fairness. Rushing complex asylum claims and deportation orders could lead to serious errors, potentially returning vulnerable people to dangerous situations without due process.
An Unprecedented Power Grab
This initiative represents a significant escalation in the administration's efforts to reshape immigration enforcement. If implemented, it would mark an unprecedented blurring of the lines between military justice and the civilian court system, setting a controversial legal precedent with implications far beyond immigration policy.
