DEEP DIVE INTO TRUMP’S WAR AGAINST IMMIGRATION COURTS

Not Just Mass Firing of Immigration Judges — Is Trump Ordering Judges to Violate the Law?

By Richard T. Herman

Quick Answer

Trump’s second-term purge of immigration judges has triggered an unprecedented ethical and constitutional crisis inside America’s immigration courts. Judges — who are DOJ employees, not independent jurists — are being fired or ordered to pretermit asylum, deny bond hearings, and enforce third-country removals that deny refugees their day in court. Meanwhile, ICE trial attorneys are using “motions to dismiss” as traps to arrest migrants in courthouse hallways and impose expedited removals outside judicial oversight.

The effect is systemic: a court system that now enforces the executive’s agenda instead of the law.

Fast Facts / At a Glance

The Stakes — A Court System Without Judges

Immigration judges are Article I employees, hired and fired by the Attorney General. They lack tenure, salary protection, and true independence. The Trump administration set an ambitious goal of deporting one million immigrants annually, which is more than triple the previous record of 267,000 in fiscal year 2019. To achieve this, the administration expanded expedited removal nationwide and established daily arrest quotas for immigration enforcement. Additionally, by March 2025, the administration deployed about 10,000 service members and allocated $376 million in military expenditures for border enforcement. Border wall construction accelerated under Trump’s administration, with contracts awarded for new barriers in Texas.

Key Insight:

When a judge’s job depends on pleasing the prosecutor, justice becomes performance review.

Inside the Purge — Who Is Being Fired and Why

The Trump administration’s second term has seen the removal of judges with defense or humanitarian backgrounds — often those with higher asylum-grant rates. Replacements frequently come from ICE or military legal ranks. Former judges and immigration advocates allege the firings were politically motivated, targeted at judges with lower asylum denial rates. The administration plans to replace dismissed judges with adjudicators who may lack experience in immigration law. Additionally, the Department of Justice has reduced the Board of Immigration Appeals from 23 to 15 members under Trump.

Richard T. Herman:

“When judges are fired for following the law instead of orders, that isn’t reform — it’s retaliation.”

Fired Judges Speak Out & Fight Back

A wave of firings at EOIR has sparked public outrage and multiple lawsuits. Dozens of immigration judges terminated under Trump 2.0 — and early in the Vance vice-presidency — claim their dismissals were politically motivated and violated merit-system rules. The firings of immigration judges have contributed to a significant backlog in the immigration court system, which has reached nearly 4 million cases. Critics argue that these firings are illogical and counter the administration’s stated goal of increasing deportations. Union leaders warn that these dismissals will exacerbate the already lengthy delays in immigration courts. The courts issued preliminary injunctions in over 100 cases against the Trump administration.

• San Francisco: Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Loi McCleskey was fired via email despite high grant rates. She called it part of a “systemic attack” on judges who apply asylum law faithfully (SFGate).
• Chicago: Judge Jennifer Peyton, a nine-year veteran, described the atmosphere as “brutal” — “We weren’t valued” (ABC7 Chicago).
• The Immigration Judges’ Union (IFPTE Local 511) says at least 17 judges across 10 states were fired in one round, many with strong pro-due-process records (PBS NewsHour).
• Former Boston judge Kerry E. Doyle wrote on LinkedIn that her firing defied logic: “The Immigration Court has 3.5 million pending cases… Hint: don’t fire the people you already have.” (Politico). Over the past nine months, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has lost more than 125 immigration judges due to firings and voluntary resignations.

The fired judges have joined forces in a lawsuit backed by Democracy Forward, alleging the mass firings violated civil-service protections and due-process rights (Democracy Forward). The firings have created a culture of fear among Executive Office for Immigration Review employees, influencing their job security perceptions. The suspension of legal service programs has left hundreds of thousands of vulnerable individuals without necessary legal representation. The Trump administration has terminated federally funded legal services for approximately 26,000 unaccompanied migrant children.

Richard T. Herman:

“Removing judges for fairness is not reform — it’s regime control.”

 Are Judges Being Ordered to Violate the Law?

1. Pretermitting Asylum Cases

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) now authorizes judges to pretermit asylum applications before testimony, often for minor clerical or procedural errors. These dismissals, issued without hearing evidence, violate the Refugee Act of 1980 and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c), which require adjudication “on the merits.” Legal experts argue that Trump’s immigration directives violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantees of due process. The courts have issued more than 100 preliminary injunctions against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Thousands of asylum seekers are now being rejected on paperwork alone — silenced before they can speak.

Richard T. Herman:

“When a person fleeing persecution isn’t even allowed to testify, it’s not law — it’s bureaucracy pretending to be justice.”

2. ICE Motions to Dismiss Followed by Hallway Arrests and Expedited Removal

Across the country, ICE attorneys are filing “motions to dismiss” or “terminate” cases under INA § 240, claiming prosecutorial discretion — only to re-arrest respondents moments later in courthouse hallways and impose expedited removal orders under INA § 235(b).

Advocates have documented this as an “end-run around judicial review” (NIPNLG Alert), noting that DHS cannot withdraw a Notice to Appear without a judicial order (CLINIC Guidance). Yet many judges, under performance pressure, are granting such motions.

The Washington Post confirmed the “dismiss-and-arrest” cycle as a defining enforcement tactic under Trump 2.0 (Washington Post).

Key Insight:

When judges approve dismissals that lead to arrests, they become instruments of enforcement rather than arbiters of justice.

3. Mandatory Detention and the Disappearing Right to Bond

Two 2025 BIA decisions — Matter of Q-Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 and Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 — bar immigration judges from conducting bond hearings for “arriving aliens” detained under INA § 235(b)(2)(A). As of March 2025, the immigration court backlog reached a record 3,629,627 active cases due to the firings and resignations of judges. The increase in immigration judge firings and the reduction in the Board of Immigration Appeals from 23 to 15 members under Trump have raised concerns among legal experts and advocates about the functioning of immigration courts.

The BIA ruled that such individuals “shall be detained” pending proceedings (DOJ – Q-Li, DOJ – Yajure-Hurtado), eliminating judicial discretion. This conflicts with Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), which held that indefinite detention without review violates due process. Meanwhile, the A.C.L.U. has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

ICE’s July 2025 memo expanded the rule, declaring most border crossers ineligible for bond (Hoppock Law summary). Judges now routinely admit they have “no jurisdiction” to review custody — a stunning reversal of judicial role.

Fast Fact:

Bond hearings are down 40 % since 2024 (TRAC / AILA).

Richard T. Herman:

“When judges say they have no power to decide liberty, that’s not neutrality — it’s surrender.”

4. Third-Country Removal Orders (“Safe-Country” Transfers)

In Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025), the BIA held that judges must order removal to a “safe third country” designated by DHS — even if applicants fear persecution there. Judges are forbidden from assessing whether the designated country is truly safe or whether due-process safeguards exist (decision PDF).

Key Insight:

This is not adjudication — it’s delegation of asylum to foreign governments with no constitutional accountability.

Ethical Crisis — When Obedience Becomes Misconduct

The ABA Model Rules and Judicial Canons require independence. DOJ’sEOIR Ethics Guide forbids bias and partiality.

Key Insight:

Following unlawful directives is not neutrality — it’s complicity.

Are Immigration Judges and ICE Attorneys Violating Their Professional Duties?

Immigration judges and ICE trial attorneys are licensed attorneys subject to state bar rules and federal ethics enforcement. Their duty to the rule of law does not end at a supervisor’s order.

Professional Rules in Conflict

• ABA Rule 5.2(a): Lawyers are responsible for obeying ethical duties even under supervision.
• Rule 8.4(a)-(d): Prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
• Rule 3.8: Prosecutors must seek justice, not merely conviction.
• Judicial Canons 1 & 2: Require independence and impartiality.

When immigration judges dismiss cases to enable hallway arrests, or ICE lawyers conceal that purpose, both risk violating these standards.

Herman:

“The judge who obeys an illegal order, and the lawyer who enforces it, both betray the oath that gives their license meaning.”

Accountability and Oversight

Despite these mechanisms, disciplinary action remains rare — reinforcing what critics call a “culture of obedience” rather than independence.

The Human Cost of Obedience

Behind every “dismissed” case file is a life erased from record.
One El Salvadoran father waited nearly three years for his asylum hearing — only to be told, “Your case was pretermitted due to a missing signature.” His lawyer had filed on time; the clerk’s office misplaced a page. Within hours, ICE escorted him to a detention center in Louisiana. His children still attend school in Maryland, waiting for a call that may never come.

Richard T. Herman:

“When justice becomes clerical, compassion dies by memo.”

This is not efficiency — it’s erasure. The new “fast-track” asylum denials may clear the docket, but they leave behind broken families and silenced witnesses of persecution.

The Judges Who Stayed — and Their Silence

Many sitting immigration judges privately describe fear of retaliation. One veteran IJ told Politico, “We’ve learned to keep our heads down. If your grant rate looks high, you become a target.”
Another said, “We all have our boss.” The Trump administration’s efforts to fire judges have created a culture of fear among immigration court employees.

Key Insight:

Silence has become the new survival skill in America’s immigration courts.

This culture of quiet compliance echoes the ethical dilemmas of past eras — from military tribunals that “just followed orders” to civil judges who enforced segregation laws despite personal conscience. Today’s IJs are facing a modern version of that moral test: to obey or to uphold the Constitution. The transition of immigration courts into politically motivated enforcement arms has undermined public trust in the judicial process.

When the Gavel Becomes a Weapon

Immigration courtrooms once symbolized refuge — where those fleeing persecution could find at least a listener. Now, the same gavels that once granted safety are being used to deny hearings altogether.

In one courtroom, a mother clutching a folder of birth certificates whispered through tears, “The judge didn’t even look at us.” The interpreter, overwhelmed, could not translate the silence.

Takeaway:

A court that cannot hear is not a court — it’s a command post.

When justice is stripped of empathy and independence, the courtroom becomes the final border wall — invisible, bureaucratic, and impenetrable.

Are Bar Complaints Against Immigration Judges and ICE Prosecutors Warranted?

As enforcement-driven tactics escalate within immigration courts, many advocates are asking a once-taboo question: Should disciplinary bar complaints be filed against immigration judges, ICE prosecutors, or even BIA members who knowingly participate in practices that violate due process? The administration sought to rely on local law enforcement as a force multiplier and rapidly expanded 287(g) agreements, allowing local officers to enforce immigration laws during routine policing.

Grounds for Concern

The New York City Bar Association recently condemned ICE’s pattern of dismissing removal cases solely to re-arrest immigrants under expedited removal, calling the tactic a “bureaucratic trap” that erodes due process and access to protection. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct require candor, impartiality, and integrity — duties that apply equally to DOJ adjudicators and ICE trial attorneys.

EOIR’s own Ethics and Professionalism Guide for Immigration Judges explicitly mandates that IJs “shall comply with the standards of conduct applicable to all attorneys in the Department of Justice.” Moreover, EOIR’s Judicial Conduct and Professionalism Unit (JCPU) already accepts complaints against immigration judges for violations of ethical obligations.

Key Insight:

Independence is not optional. When obedience replaces judgment, ethics become policy.

Why It Matters

When officials endorse or facilitate systemic practices — like dismissing cases to enable arrests or denying bond hearings in defiance of precedent — they may not simply be enforcing policy. They may be violating Rule 8.4(d) (“conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) and Rule 3.8 (“prosecutor’s duty to seek justice”).

If an ICE attorney files a motion knowing it will lead to detention without judicial review, or if an IJ approves dismissals enabling post-hearing arrests, bar complaints may be ethically warranted. The same logic applies to BIA judges who affirm such actions without legal reasoning or against binding Supreme Court precedent.

Possible Avenues for Accountability

• Bar Complaints: State bars can discipline ICE and DOJ attorneys for violations of professional conduct rules, including deceit, bias, or abuse of process.
• Judicial Misconduct Complaints: The JCPU allows litigants, attorneys, and advocacy groups to report immigration judges for unprofessional or biased behavior.
• Referrals: EOIR’s disciplinary system can refer matters to state bar authorities when warranted, including for ICE OPLA attorneys who act in bad faith.

Barriers to Enforcement

Government attorneys operate under DOJ rules, and disciplinary systems are opaque, slow, and rarely public. Nonetheless, documentation and referral still matter: paper trails create accountability, and ethics complaints can shape public and congressional awareness of systemic abuse.

The Bottom Line

Yes — bar complaints or judicial-misconduct referrals against immigration judges, ICE prosecutors, or BIA adjudicators may be ethically justified when actions reflect not mere error but deliberate disregard for due process or constitutional norms. Protecting the profession means holding every officer of the court — including those in uniform — to the same ethical standards.

The Geography and Lottery of Justice

Key Insight:

Justice should not depend on which courtroom or city you stand in.

Article I vs Article III Judges — Why EOIR Isn’t Independent

The ABA, NAIJ, and AILA all support creation of an independent Article I Immigration Court per ABA Resolution 114 (2019).

Herman:

“As long as immigration judges work for the Attorney General, independence is an illusion.”

FAQ

Q1: Why are immigration judges being fired?
→ Those with defense or humanitarian backgrounds are being replaced by enforcement-aligned hires.

Q2: What is pretermission?
→ Dismissing an asylum case before evidence or testimony is heard.

Q3: What does C-I-G-M- do?
→ Allows DHS to offload asylum seekers to “safe third countries.”

Q4: Why no bond hearings?
→ Q-Li and Yajure-Hurtado remove IJ jurisdiction under § 235(b).

Q5: Are ICE lawyers violating ethics rules?
→ Potentially, under Rules 3.3 (candor) and 8.4(d) (justice integrity).

Q6: Can Congress fix this?
→ Yes — by creating an independent Article I Immigration Court.

About Richard T. Herman

Richard T. Herman, founder of the Herman Legal Group, has represented immigrants for 30 years. Co-author of Immigrant, Inc., he’s a national advocate for immigrant rights and judicial independence.
Schedule a confidential consultation here.

Resource Directory — For Readers, Journalists, and Advocates

Ethics and Oversight

• ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct — Rules every attorney must follow; governs honesty, independence, and duty to justice.
• ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct — Standards requiring impartiality and integrity for all judges.
• EOIR Office of Ethics & Professionalism — Handles complaints against immigration judges for misconduct or bias.
• DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility — Investigates ethics violations by DOJ and EOIR attorneys.
• DHS Office of Inspector General — Oversees ICE and CBP misconduct and accountability.
• State Bar Discipline Portals — How to report unethical behavior by licensed lawyers in each state.

Judicial Reform and Advocacy

• National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Advocates for an independent immigration court system.
• American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) — Professional body promoting due process and court transparency.
• ABA Resolution 114 (2019) — Official ABA call to make immigration courts independent (Article I).
• Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference (FALJC) — Supports fairness and independence for all administrative judges.
• American Constitution Society — Think tank tracking threats to judicial independence and civil rights.

Key Cases and Legal Authority

• Matter of Q-Li (BIA 2025) — Removes bond-hearing rights for some detained immigrants.
• Matter of Yajure-Hurtado (BIA 2025) — Confirms “mandatory detention” for certain entrants.
• Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- (BIA 2025) — Allows removals to so-called “safe third countries.”
• Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) — Supreme Court: indefinite detention violates due process.
• Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018) — Reaffirms limits on prolonged detention.
• Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — The full statutory framework for U.S. immigration law.

Research and Data

• TRAC Immigration — Judge-by-judge asylum grant data and detention trends.
• Migration Policy Institute (MPI) — Nonpartisan analysis of immigration systems worldwide.
• Cato Institute – Immigration Research — Research on immigration courts, policy, and economics.

Due Process and Legal Advocacy

• ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project — Challenges unlawful detention and deportation practices.
• National Immigration Project of NLG (NIPNLG) — Provides litigation support and alerts on ICE and EOIR policies.
• Human Rights First — Tracks asylum bans, third-country removals, and refugee rights.
• American Immigration Council — Publishes data-driven reports on court fairness and backlogs.

Legal Help and Representation

• Herman Legal Group – Book a Consultation — 30+ years of trusted immigration representation nationwide.
• LawHelp.org — Connects immigrants with free or low-cost legal aid in their state.
• National Immigration Legal Services Directory — Search nonprofit legal aid by state and immigration need.