Trump Administration Accused of Purging Immigration Judges to Speed Up Deportations
More than 100 immigration judges were fired or forced out of their positions and replaced with Department of Homeland Security prosecutors and military lawyers since Donald Trump took office, according to a detailed investigation. The judges allege they faced a systematic pressure campaign from the administration, with threats of disciplinary action if they did not comply with demands to deport tens of thousands of people from the United States rapidly.
Judges Describe Pressure to Order Removals
More than a dozen federal judges who served under the Trump administration have told The New York Times they felt compelled to order the removals of immigrants pleading for relief in their courtrooms, risking their jobs if they resisted. "All of us are looking over our shoulders," said Holly D’Andrea, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, highlighting the pervasive atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
Shuting Chen, an immigration judge fired in November, described the situation starkly: "Judges are used as puppets for the administration with a singular goal of deporting as many people as possible as quickly as possible." These accounts paint a picture of a due process system in free fall, with the fates of over three million people whose cases are pending in immigration courts hanging in the balance.
Systematic Changes and Purges
Unlike federal courts, immigration courts and their judges operate under the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the president. In these courtrooms, judges decide whether immigrants can be deported or granted legal status such as asylum. There are more than 70 immigration courts nationwide, including facilities in detention centers and federal buildings.
After Trump assumed office, the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review instructed judges to grant motions from government lawyers to dismiss immigrants' cases immediately, making them easy targets for arrest and removal. This led to scenes of masked federal agents patrolling courthouse hallways and apprehending immigrants moments after their hearings concluded.
The administration also directed judges to deny bond to immigrants who crossed the border illegally, overturning decades of precedent and resulting in detentions lasting weeks or months, regardless of how long individuals had lived in the country or their lack of criminal records.
Dramatic Staffing Changes and Impact
Judges perceived as insufficiently aligned with the president's anti-immigration agenda were fired or pressured to resign. On Trump's first day in office, the Justice Department dismissed the acting head of the immigration court system and three other top officials. Subsequently, more than 100 immigration judges have left their posts, representing a roughly 16 percent reduction in less than a year.
Notable purges occurred in New York City and San Francisco at the end of last year, where the assistant chief judge in Manhattan was removed, and nearly half of San Francisco's 21 judges were fired, prompting the Justice Department to shut down the main courthouse there entirely. Dozens of other judges have retired or resigned since the start of the Trump administration.
"It's a dismantling of the court system," remarked Jeremiah Johnson, a fired San Francisco judge, underscoring the scale of the upheaval.
Replacement with Prosecutors and Military Lawyers
Concurrently, the Justice Department significantly lowered hiring standards for new "temporary" judges, granting the administration broad discretion to appoint "any attorney" to make critical decisions affecting tens of thousands of people. The Department of Defense approved sending up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department to help address case backlogs by presiding over immigration hearings.
Since these changes, the administration has appointed nearly 150 permanent and temporary judges, including military lawyers and former DHS prosecutors. The strategy appears effective: deportation orders are surging, and judges are granting asylum claims in fewer than 10 percent of cases this year, the lowest rate on record.
Stark Contrast in Asylum Approval Rates
Before their dismissal, judges granted asylum to 46 percent of applicants during the current administration, significantly higher than the 15 percent approval rate for those who remained. Newly appointed judges have granted asylum in approximately 6 percent of cases, according to The Times analysis. A proposed rule change at the Board of Immigration Review could further streamline the process by ordering the appellate panel to dismiss most cases.
Ongoing Pressure and Legal Controversies
While judges can still grant bond hearings to individuals who overstayed visas or entered legally but lapsed in status, Chief Immigration Judge Teresa Riley has reportedly requested explanations for bond decisions, with supervisors alerted whenever bond is granted. One current judge noted that "the pressure to deny bond is overt."
In a recent federal court admission, a top prosecutor in Manhattan expressed regret that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had falsely claimed officers could arrest people inside immigration courts. U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton attributed the error to ICE and its legal team, which misinformed his office about a Trump-era memo's applicability. This revelation emerged from litigation challenging the administration's "sweeping, unprecedented campaign of targeting noncitizens at their immigration court proceedings."
In courthouse hallways, immigrants have been seen tearfully saying goodbye to family members after hearings, with ICE transferring dozens arrested in New York courts to detention centers in Texas and Louisiana for extended periods. The cumulative effect of these policies has reshaped the immigration judiciary, prioritizing deportation speed over judicial independence and due process.
