Quick Answer

The Trump administration has launched a national campaign to recruit what it calls “deportation judges,” a term that signals a dramatic restructuring of the immigration adjudication system. These roles mirror immigration judges—but the branding and job language suggest a system engineered for faster removals, fewer continuances, and reduced due process. Reports from USA Today, Detroit News, and NBC Bay Area reveal that career immigration judges have already been fired, clearing the way for a more enforcement-driven judiciary.

For immigrants, this means the difference between a fair hearing and a rushed removal. For families, students, workers, and asylum seekers, the risk has never been higher. The goal of this article is to break down exactly what’s changed and give you the tools, checklists, insights, and legal framework you need to protect yourself or your loved ones.

Fast Facts

DOJ launched ads encouraging legal professionals to “become a deportation judge” and “decide who stays or must leave.”
Salary listed ~ $159,951 to $207,500, with emphasis on “efficiency.”
The official job title remains immigration judge, but the marketing and duties suggest a re-engineered fast-track removal model.
Dozens of career immigration judges have reportedly been fired or pushed out.
Enforcement-first messaging signals a shift from adjudication to high-volume removal processing.
Affects asylum seekers, families, students, TPS holders, DACA recipients, undocumented immigrants, and workers facing status violations.
Shorter hearings and fewer continuances increase the risk of in-absentia removal orders.
Detention could become a primary pipeline for processing cases quickly.
Major immigrant cities—New York, LA, Miami, Houston, Chicago—likely impacted first.
The implications are immediate: if you or a family member has a pending case, do not assume timelines or procedures will remain as before.

Introduction

The Trump administration’s push to hire “deportation judges” is more than a workforce campaign. It’s a signal that the United States is shifting from a justice-based immigration court model to an enforcement-driven removal machine. With public ads targeting attorneys to join the “deportation judge corps,” the federal government appears to be collapsing the separation between DHS enforcement and DOJ adjudication.

This article dissects what the job postings actually reveal, what the media has confirmed, and what attorneys—including Richard T. Herman, Esq., with more than 30 years of experience—are already seeing inside the system.

Visual Snapshot

How U.S. Immigration Adjudication Has Shifted (2017–2025)

Year	Development	Impact
2017	Enforcement surge begins under Sessions	Increased pressure on immigration courts
2020	“Rocket dockets” appear	Shorter hearings, heavy caseloads
2023–2024	Pre-Trump backlog hits historic highs	Over 3 million pending cases
2025 (early)	Career immigration judges fired or reassigned	Less judicial independence
2025 (Nov.)	DOJ launches “deportation judge” recruitment ads	Signals a redesigned removal pipeline

A. What Changed (Officially)

Media Confirmations

Multiple credible outlets confirm that DOJ posted recruitment ads calling for lawyers to apply as “deportation judges”:

What the Ads Say

“Become a deportation judge.”
“Decide who stays in America and who must leave.”
“Help define America for generations to come.”
“Make fast and efficient decisions.”

**What the Job Posting Really Is**

Technically, the posted roles fall under EOIR immigration judge hiring.

But the public-facing branding—never used before in U.S. history—signals a pivot:

Not neutral judge → removal adjudicator.

The ads emphasize efficiency, speed, meritorious claims only, and high caseload processing—all hallmarks of a conveyor-belt removal system.

B. What the New “Deportation Judge” Role Actually Is

Comparison Table

Aspect	Traditional Immigration Judge	“Deportation Judge” (Advertised)
Purpose	Neutral adjudicator	High-volume removal processor
Branding	“Immigration Judge”	“Deportation Judge”
Safeguards	Ethical barriers, procedural protections	Emphasis on throughput, fewer continuances
Hearings	Often lengthy, detailed	Short, streamlined
Expected Output	Case-by-case justice	Rapid removal decisions
Agency Alignment	DOJ adjudication	Appears aligned with DHS enforcement goals

Why This Matters

Changing the label changes:

expectations,
public perception,
internal culture,
and policy priorities.

This branding shift normalizes the idea that immigration courts are removal factories, not justice forums.

Richard Herman puts it bluntly:

“A court with a pre-determined preferred outcome is not a court. It is an administrative removal chute.”

C. Why This Collapses the Appearance of Due Process

1. Loss of Judicial Independence

If the role is marketed inherently as a “deportation” job, neutrality is compromised.

2. Speed Over Fairness

Fewer continuances
Shorter hearings
Tighter scheduling windows
Limited time for preparing relief cases

3. Increased In-Absentia Orders

Faster hearings = more missed hearings = more default removal orders.

4. Detention as a Strategic Tool

Expedited dockets often rely on detention to guarantee:

attendance
rapid processing
limited access to counsel

5. More Pressure on Unrepresented Immigrants

Pro se immigrants fare far worse in accelerated systems.

6. “Meritorious Claims” Language

A red flag: job ads promising to “ensure only meritorious claims succeed” suggest a predisposition against approvals.

This alone undermines the legal requirement that asylum and relief cases receive individualized, impartial review.

D. Why “Deportation Judges” Supercharge a System That’s Already Not Independent

Most Americans do not realize: immigration courts are not independent courts.

They are controlled by the Department of Justice, not the judiciary.

They operate under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Key government reference:

EOIR – Executive Office for Immigration Review

Because EOIR is part of DOJ, the Attorney General can directly influence:

immigration judge hiring
case law through AG-certified opinions
procedural rules
appellate decisions at the BIA

Major organizations have long warned about this structural flaw:

AILA and NAIJ have repeatedly argued that EOIR’s placement inside DOJ leads to:

political interference
quota pressure
enforcement bias
compromised due process
judicial intimidation
lack of independence

Their long-standing position: The U.S. needs an Article I independent immigration court.

E. The Purge of Immigration Judges — How EOIR Lost Its Remaining Independence

The hiring blitz for “deportation judges” did not emerge in isolation. It follows what multiple news outlets describe as an unprecedented purge of career Immigration Judges (IJs) across the United States. These firings shook EOIR, destabilized dockets nationwide, and sent an unmistakable message to remaining judges: neutrality will not be tolerated.

1. Scope of the Firings: Dozens of Judges Removed in Months

Media outlets reported a large-scale replacement of immigration judges in 2025, with credible sources describing the removal of a significant number of IJs viewed as insufficiently aligned with the administration’s enforcement goals.

Sources Referenced:

Reported Pattern:

Judges with reputations for fairness, neutrality, or careful asylum review were dismissed or not reappointed.
Some IJs who granted asylum or continuances were labeled “too lenient.”
Entire supervisory roles were reportedly reshuffled to install enforcement-first leadership.

While exact numbers vary across reports and interviews, attorneys across major jurisdictions describe a consistent wave — dozens of judges removed or reassigned in a matter of months.

2. What Fired Judges Said Publicly: “This is not about performance — it’s about outcomes.”

Multiple judges spoke to journalists anonymously — or after leaving EOIR — because they feared professional retaliation.

Their statements, as summarized in media reporting, paint a disturbing picture:

Paraphrased Statements From Judges (as reported):

Judges said they were removed because their asylum grant rates were considered “too high.”
Others reported being pushed out after granting continuances “the administration did not want judges to grant.”
One former judge said the firings reflect “a political cleansing of the courts.”
Another warned that the system is being reshaped so that “immigration judges are expected to produce removals, not justice.”
Some described a “climate of fear” inside EOIR, where judges worried each week whether their decisions would trigger review or retaliation.

NBC Bay Area reported that former judges saw these firings as an “attack on the rule of law and judicial independence.”
Source:
NBC Bay Area

3. Types of Judges Who Were Removed: A Targeted Pattern

According to attorney accounts and public reporting, the IJs who were dismissed often had one or more of the following characteristics:

a. Known for due-process oriented judging

They granted continuances, allowed expert testimony, or gave asylum seekers adequate time to gather evidence.

b. Former defense-side experience

Many had backgrounds in nonprofit legal services, public defense, or asylum representation — roles viewed skeptically by political leadership.

c. Lower denial rates than colleagues

Even when within normal statistical variance, judges with comparatively balanced asylum grant rates were scrutinized.

d. Judges resistant to performance quotas

Some spoke, internally or publicly, against production metrics.

e. Supervisors who refused to pressure other judges

Chief and assistant chief immigration judges who defended judicial independence were reportedly among those reassigned.

4. Why These Firings Matter: A System Designed for Obedience, Not Adjudication

Immigration judges are not Article III lifetime-appointed judges.

They are employees of the Department of Justice, subject to:

performance evaluation
political pressure
dismissal
supervision by political appointees

Given that structure, firing dozens of judges sends a clear message to the entire system:

Rule how we want, or we will replace you.

This has a chilling effect on:

asylum adjudications
bond hearings
motions to suppress
continuances
evidence review
any judicial exercise of discretion

Remaining judges see what happened and adjust accordingly, which leads to:

fewer grants of relief
fewer procedural protections
more deference to ICE
faster removal proceedings
fewer written decisions (to avoid political scrutiny)

5. Firings + Ads for “Deportation Judges”: A One-Two Punch

The timing was not subtle.

Step 1: Fire or purge neutral, fair-minded judges with experience.

Step 2: Launch a national recruitment campaign for “deportation judges” with public ads emphasizing removal power and “speed.”

This produces:

ideological realignment
a court system populated by judges selected for their enforcement alignment
a judiciary that sees itself as an extension of DHS/ICE rather than a check on it
a system where political preference replaces legal interpretation

The Detroit News analysis framed it openly: DOJ wants judges who will “aid the crackdown” and “enhance enforcement efficiency.”
Source:
Detroit News

6. What Lawyers Report Seeing After the Firings

Across major jurisdictions (New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami), attorneys describe immediate changes:

a. Denial-first culture

Judges now deny continuances reflexively, even when unopposed by ICE.

b. Increased in-absentia orders

Schedules accelerate; immigrants cannot secure counsel; hearings proceed without them.

c. Streamlined removal

Cases are scheduled rapidly; IJs encourage “quick resolution.”

d. Coordinated hallways arrests

ICE arrests respondents immediately after hearings or dismissals, triggering expedited removal.

e. Vanishing bond jurisdiction

Judges declare — without rulemaking — that they lack authority to conduct bond hearings for EWI cases.

f. Fear-based adjudication

Attorneys describe judges “looking over their shoulder,” worried their decisions will be second-guessed.

7. The Message From Former Judges: “This is not a court anymore.”

Multiple judges, speaking to reporters, expressed versions of the same idea:

the immigration court system has crossed a line.

Their concerns are echoed by organizations like the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), which has long argued that EOIR:

cannot protect judges from political interference
lacks structural independence
incentivizes enforcement outcomes
punishes neutral decision-making

For many observers, the 2025 firings represent the final collapse of the appearance of judicial independence.

F. The Rapid Erosion of Due Process Through Re-Interpretation of Longstanding Immigration Law

In 2025–26, the most alarming transformation inside the immigration court system is not merely the hiring of so-called “deportation judges”—it is the aggressive re-interpretation of longstanding law in ways that eliminate due process protections once considered foundational.

Immigration attorneys across the country are reporting three seismic shifts that fundamentally alter the nature of removal proceedings and the balance of power between Immigration Judges (IJs), ICE, and respondents.

**1. Expedited Removal Used Inside EOIR Courts — A Complete Break with 25 Years of Law**

For more than two decades, expedited removal (ER) was limited almost entirely to:

border encounters, and
certain recent entrants found within 100 miles of the border.

That framework is documented clearly in DHS and EOIR guidance:

What’s happening now is unprecedented.

Attorneys in multiple jurisdictions report a disturbing pattern:

A respondent appears for EOIR proceedings.
Their attorney makes a motion to dismiss (or terminate) under well-established case law supportive of such relief.
Once the IJ grants dismissal, ICE immediately arrests the immigrant in the hallway—outside the courtroom—and
Processes them under expedited removal, sending them out of the U.S. without a hearing.

This strategy weaponizes dismissal—a tool traditionally used to correct legal defects—into a trapdoor for fast-track deportation.

Why this is a due-process crisis

The respondent never gets a full hearing on the merits.
There is no opportunity to apply for asylum or other relief.
There is no bond hearing, no appeal, and no judicial review.
IJs who enable this maneuver are effectively complicit in bypassing the judicial process they are sworn to protect.

Expedited removal inside courthouse hallways represents a historic break from how immigration law has functioned in the United States since 1996.

2. Immigration Judges Declaring They Have “No Jurisdiction” to Conduct Bond Hearings for EWI Cases

For decades, immigration judges exercised clear jurisdiction to conduct bond hearings for individuals who:

entered without inspection (EWI), or
were arrested in the interior, not at the border.

This authority stems from long-established INA and EOIR policy guidance:

What is happening now?

In 2025–26, attorneys nationwide report the sudden, sweeping claim (without rulemaking or Federal Register notice) that:
“IJs have no jurisdiction over bond for EWI cases.”

This reversal:

contradicts 25+ years of case practice
contradicts how EOIR implemented INA §236(a) for decades
contradicts the lived experience of every immigration attorney
eliminates one of the only due-process safeguards for noncitizens

Why this matters

Bond hearings are the gateway to fairness.

A detained immigrant:

cannot gather evidence
cannot retain counsel easily
cannot meaningfully prepare for relief
is more likely to give up and accept removal

Removing bond jurisdiction is, in effect, removing access to justice.

This is not an interpretation of law; this is inventing a new rule without calling it a rule.

3. “We All Have Our Bosses”: The Collapse of Judicial Independence

Attorneys in multiple cities report hearing the same chilling line from immigration judges:

“We all have our bosses.”

This phrase encapsulates the most dangerous trend of all:
the shrinking distance between EOIR adjudicators and DHS enforcement.

Historically, IJs and ICE attorneys operated as separate actors:

ICE prosecuted
The IJ adjudicated
The immigrant defended

This tripartite structure was the bare minimum needed to call the process a “court.”

That separation is dissolving.

Immigration judges now routinely:

echo ICE enforcement positions
adopt ICE jurisdiction theories
deny relief that was long considered available
refuse continuances even when DHS does not object
evaluate cases based on executive-branch policy, not statutory rights

Quotas, firings, and political reappointments have created:

fear among judges
incentives for denial
disincentives for written decisions
pressure to adopt DHS interpretations

The IJ’s statement—“We all have our bosses”—is not a casual remark.

It is a confession that:

judicial independence is gone, and
immigration courts are morphing into enforcement chambers.

Why These Three Trends Are Connected

These changes form a coherent pattern:

1. Expedited removal inside EOIR

→ Eliminates hearings entirely.

2. No bond jurisdiction for EWI

→ Keeps immigrants detained and vulnerable to rapid removal.

3. Judges deferring to “bosses”

→ Replaces neutral adjudication with political obedience.

Together, these shifts dismantle the illusion that immigration courts are courts at all.

They reveal the emerging reality:

A national deportation machine disguised as a judicial process.

G. What’s Really Happening Inside Immigration Courts in 2025–26”

Online questions on Reddit and other forums abound:

“How did immigration courts suddenly get so aggressive? What changed?”

Here’s my explanation based on direct attorney experience.

1. Expedited Removal Is Now Being Used Inside the Court System

This is the big one.

For 25+ years, expedited removal (ER) was used at:

the border
airports
certain ports of entry

Not inside immigration courts. And NEVER after a judge dismissed a case.

Now?

People show up for their EOIR hearing.

Their lawyer makes a motion to dismiss (which is normal).

The judge grants it.

Case closed.

And then ICE arrests them in the hallway and removes them under expedited removal — with NO hearing.

No asylum hearing.

No bond.

No appeals.

No judge.

Nothing.

This is a border tool being weaponized against people living inside the U.S.

And immigration judges are complicit because they know what happens the moment they dismiss the case.

2. Judges Are Suddenly Claiming They “Have No Jurisdiction” to Give Bond to Anyone Who Crossed the Border Without Inspection (EWI)

This is new.

For decades, judges gave bond hearings to EWI respondents.

Every experiencd immigration attorney has handled hundreds of them.

Now?

Judges are saying:

“I don’t have jurisdiction.”

No rule change.

No statute change.

No Federal Register notice.

No EOIR memo.

Just… a new “interpretation” that magically eliminates bond for tens of thousands of people.

This means:

more detention
faster removal
less chance of preparing a defense

It’s not law.

It’s policy dressed up as law.

3. Immigration Judges Are Admitting They’re Taking Direction From Political Superiors

Attorneys across the U.S. are hearing the same line or sentiment from judges:

“We all have our bosses.”

This means:

they know how they’re expected to rule
independence is gone
ICE and DOJ enforcement priorities are shaping decisions
the space between prosecutor (ICE) and judge (IJ) has collapsed

Immigration courts were already not truly independent.

Now they aren’t even pretending.

4. TL;DR:

Expedited removal is now being used inside EOIR courts.
Dismissals are being turned into deportation traps.
Bond jurisdiction for EWI is disappearing without legal basis.
Judges openly admit they’re following orders.
The line between ICE enforcement and EOIR adjudication is collapsing.
Due process is being replaced by an enforcement pipeline.

This is why online communities are exploding with fear, confusion, and “WTF is happening?” threads.

And they’re right to panic.

H. How Can Asylum Approval Rates Vary So Widely Between Courts — and Even Between Judges?”

One of the clearest signs that the U.S. immigration court system is not functioning like a real judicial system is the massive variation in asylum approval rates across different courts — and even between judges sitting in the same building, applying the same laws, reviewing the same types of cases.

This isn’t a small difference.

It is a national pattern of extreme inequality.

And it is documented publicly by TRAC Immigration, the country’s most respected nonpartisan source for immigration court analytics.

Reference:
TRAC Immigration – Asylum Decisions

1. National Averages Hide Extreme Variation

Across the United States, the average asylum grant rate ranges widely depending on the court location. But the national average tells us almost nothing about what actually happens in individual courtrooms.

Here is the real landscape:

Some courts grant asylum in over half their cases

New York City, for example, has historically had an asylum approval rate in the 55–60% range (according to recent TRAC data summaries) (with some judges approving over 90% of their cases).

Other courts grant asylum to almost no one

There are immigration courts — especially in certain Southern or interior jurisdictions — where the overall approval rates fall below 15%.

The gap is staggering.

2. The Even Bigger Problem: Variation Between Judges in the Same Court

Inside some high-volume courts, you can have:

Judge A granting 90% or more of asylum cases
Judge B granting less than 10%
Both in the same building,
Applying the same statutes (INA § 208, § 241(b)(3)),
Using the same regulations (8 C.F.R. §§ 208, 1208),
Reviewing cases from the same countries

The only difference?

The judge.

This is not normal variation — it is a symptom of a system where outcomes depend less on the law and more on who is sitting on the bench.

3. Why Does This Happen? The Structural Flaws in EOIR

Below are the key reasons asylum decisions vary so dramatically across the country and even within the same courthouse:

A. Immigration Judges Are Hired and Supervised by DOJ, Not an Independent Court

Immigration Judges are:

employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
evaluated by supervisors
subject to performance metrics
vulnerable to political pressure
lacking lifetime tenure

This lack of independence leads to substantial variation — judges feel different levels of:

pressure
supervision
fear of reversal
political scrutiny

Reference:
Executive Office for Immigration Review

B. Judges Face Quotas and “Productivity Metrics”

Since 2018, EOIR has imposed case completion quotas on judges.
These quotas:

incentivize speed
penalize careful review
discourage full asylum hearings
reduce time for evidence gathering

Speed + high caseload pressure → holes in due process → wildly inconsistent outcomes.

Reference:
AILA – Immigration Court Reform

C. Geographic Enforcement Cultures Shape Outcomes

Local ICE attorneys and local court leadership often influence:

how cases are prosecuted
how continuances are opposed
what types of relief ICE fights aggressively

This regional enforcement culture explains why:

NYC has a 55–60% approval rate
some Deep South courts are below 15%

Same law.

Different climate.

D. Judges Bring Vastly Different Backgrounds

Some judges come from:

asylum advocacy
public defense
nonprofit legal services

Others come from:

ICE
DHS
high-enforcement backgrounds

Their professional history profoundly shapes:

how they evaluate testimony
how they assess credibility
how they view trauma
whether they give the benefit of the doubt

This is not a defect in the judges as people — it is a defect in the system that places them in adjudicatory roles without true independence or consistent training.

E. No Precedent-Binding Culture Like Article III Courts

Unlike real judicial systems, EOIR:

does not have robust precedent rules
lacks consistent nationwide guidance
has a weak culture of stare decisis
allows huge judge-to-judge discretion

Even when the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) tries to unify standards, the Attorney General can:

override BIA
set new precedent instantly
shift legal interpretations politically

Reference:
Office of the Attorney General – EOIR Decisions

This creates constant legal instability, encouraging variation.

F. The Asylum Process Is Subjective by Nature — and EOIR Provides No Guardrails

Evaluating asylum cases requires assessing:

credibility
trauma
country conditions
political persecution
subjective fear

Without:

independent judging
uniform standards
adequate training
adequate time
meaningful appellate oversight

the result is a system where the judge’s personality and worldview matter more than the law.

4. What This Means for Immigrants: “Justice by Zip Code”

Two asylum seekers with the same facts, the same fear, from the same country, could have completely opposite outcomes depending on:

which city they appear in
which judge they draw
whether their judge feels political pressure
whether the judge’s docket is overwhelmed
whether the judge is fearful of being fired or reassigned

This is not justice.

This is lottery-based adjudication.

5. TRAC Data Proves the Point Again and Again

TRAC reports have documented:

judges with denial rates above 90%
judges with grant rates above 50%
courts with massive disparities statewide
unexplained year-to-year fluctuations correlated with political cycles

Reference:
TRAC Immigration – Asylum Decisions

The key takeaway from TRAC’s reporting is simple:

The law is the same everywhere — the outcomes are not.

6. How “Deportation Judges” Make This Problem Worse

The DOJ’s shift toward:

firing experienced judges
hiring “deportation judges”
emphasizing speed
rewarding denials
discouraging continuances
using expedited removal in hallways
interpreting bond jurisdiction away

means the variation will increase dramatically.

Expect:

more judges with denial rates above 90%
fewer judges with meaningful grant rates
less space for individualized assessment
more politically influenced outcomes

Because when the role is branded as “deportation judge”, asylum is no longer viewed as a protection — it is viewed as an obstacle.

7. The System Fails When the Same Law Produces Opposite Outcomes

In any true judicial system:

the law
precedent
standards
judicial independence
appellate oversight

would produce consistent, predictable outcomes.

In EOIR, they do not.

This is not a reflection of asylum seekers.

It is a reflection of a deeply broken system.

One that prioritizes:

speed
quotas
enforcement
political control

over fairness and consistency.

8. Why Do Asylum Approval Rates Vary So Much Between Judges?

One of the biggest immigration mysteries on Reddit an other online forums is why some asylum seekers win their cases easily… while others get denied over and over.

Here’s the simple truth:

It depends almost entirely on which judge you get — not the law.

And yes, that’s as crazy as it sounds.

Reference for data:

TRAC Immigration – Asylum Decisions

A.) NYC Judges Approve ~55–60% of Cases … While Some Courts Approve <15%

New York City has one of the highest grant rates in the country.

Meanwhile, some courts in the South and Midwest approve less than 1 out of 10 asylum cases.

Same law.

Same statutes.

Same types of cases.

Totally different outcomes.

B.) Even Inside the Same Court, Judges Can Be Opposites

You can walk into the same courthouse and get:

Judge A: 25% grant rate
Judge B: 5% grant rate

Same building.

Same country conditions.

Same legal standard (“well-founded fear”).

Your fate depends on the draw of the judge — not your evidence.

C.) Why Is This Possible?

Because immigration courts (EOIR) are not independent courts.

They are run by the Department of Justice, which is an enforcement agency.

DOJ controls:

hiring
firing
quotas
training
policy
supervision

This means judges face:

political pressure
production quotas
enforcement expectations

So outcomes drift based on:

judge background
judge philosophy
docket pressure
local ICE culture
fear of being punished for granting cases

D.) What This Means in Practice

Two people with the exact same asylum case can have:

totally opposite outcomes
just because of where their case lands
and which IJ they draw

That’s why people call the system “asylum roulette.”

E) “Deportation Judges” Will Make the Gap Even Bigger

After the 2025 hiring shift, judges are being recruited as “deportation judges,” not neutral adjudicators.

Combine that with:

firing of experienced judges
new political pressure
fewer continuances
faster hearings
expedited removal traps

…and it’s obvious the disparity will only grow.

F.)TL;DR

NYC grants ~55–60% of asylum cases.
Some courts grant <15%.
Some judges grant <5%.
Same law — totally different outcomes.
Immigration courts are run by DOJ, not independent.
Who your judge is matters more than what the law says.

This is why so many attorneys call it “justice by ZIP code.”

I. New Section: Why the U.S. Needs Immigration Court Reform — Right Now

For decades, legal scholars, immigration judges, and civil rights organizations have warned that the United States does not actually have an independent immigration court system. Immigration courts live inside the Department of Justice (DOJ) — an agency whose primary mission is enforcement, not neutrality.

Now, after the 2025 shift toward “deportation judges,” the crisis has become too large to ignore.

1. EOIR Is the Only High-Volume Court System in America Not Independent From Prosecutors

EOIR is run by:

the Attorney General
DOJ leadership
politically appointed officers

This gives DOJ direct control over:

judge hiring
judge firing
case assignment
procedural rules
precedent-setting
case quotas

Even the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is an extension of DOJ.
There is no constitutional separation.

Reference:
Executive Office for Immigration Review

2. The Case for an Article I Immigration Court

Organizations across the spectrum support removing EOIR from DOJ and creating an Article I court, like:

U.S. Tax Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Supporters include:

American Immigration Lawyers Association
National Association of Immigration Judges
National Immigrant Justice Center
Bipartisan former immigration judges
Administrative law scholars

An Article I court would:

guarantee judicial independence
protect judges from political pressure
eliminate quotas
ensure fair hearing procedures
create consistent case law
restore public trust

3. Why Reform Became Urgent in 2025–26

The “deportation judge” era demonstrates what experts warned for decades:

When a prosecutorial agency controls the court, it can:

fire judges who rule “too fairly”
hire judges who focus on removals
reinterpret jurisdiction (like eliminating bond hearings)
collaborate with ICE in enforcement traps
push expedited removal into court hallways

These are not policy disputes — they are constitutional dangers.

4. What an Independent Immigration Court Would Change

A truly independent court would:

Restore Neutral Adjudication

Judges would:

not be supervised by ICE
not fear retaliation
not follow political directives

Protect Procedural Rights

continuances
fair scheduling
right to present evidence
right to counsel
meaningful asylum review

Ban Quotas and Enforcement Metrics

Judges would no longer be performance-rated like factory workers.

Stop Enforcement-Trap Dismissals

Expedited removal would return to the border, where it belongs.

Prevent Sudden “No Jurisdiction” Reinterpretations

Bond hearings for EWI respondents would return to longstanding norms.

Allow Consistent Legal Standards Nationwide

No more “justice by zip code,” where outcomes depend on the judge, the city, or the administration.

5. What Congress Must Do

Congress has the power to create an Article I court by statute.
Dozens of legislative proposals over the past 25 years attempted this.

But after the events of 2025–26 —
the need is no longer academic, it’s urgent.

Without structural reform:

the judicial role collapses
due process disappears
enforcement becomes adjudication
immigrants lose rights guaranteed under U.S. law

6. Reform Is No Longer Optional — It Is the Only Path Back to Justice

The 2025–26 transformations revealed the fragility of a system where:

judges answer to enforcement agencies
political appointees shape case outcomes
expedited removal bypasses courts entirely
bond hearings disappear overnight
judges themselves admit “we have our bosses”

This is not a court.

It’s an administrative removal mechanism wearing judicial clothing.

Reform must not only undo recent damage — it must move immigration courts into the modern era, with:

independence
transparency
accountability
constitutional safeguards
equal justice

Until then, due process will remain optional, conditional, and politically defined — instead of legally guaranteed.

J. Performance Quotas + Rocket Dockets = Assembly-Line Justice

Performance quotas

Under DOJ regulations, immigration judges can be evaluated using case completion metrics.

Reference:

AILA has stated for years that quotas:

undermine judicial independence
incentivize speed over accuracy
penalize judges who grant relief because such cases require more time

Rocket dockets

EOIR has used “rocket docket” calendars since 2017, heavily criticized by:

NAIJ
NIJC

Rocket dockets schedule:

hearings with only weeks of preparation
extremely limited continuances
heavy pressure on unrepresented immigrants

Backlog manipulation

According to TRAC:

backlog reduction under accelerated dockets does not indicate improved fairness
in-absentia orders have increased
detained case removals have increased
substitution of speed for due process is statistically visible

Source:

TRAC Immigration Court Data

K. What Lawyers Are Seeing Inside EOIR (2025–26)

Across the country, attorneys report:

1. Shorter hearings

Master hearings that once lasted 10–20 minutes are now as short as 3–5 minutes.

2. Reduced continuances

Even valid reasons like:

securing counsel
gathering evidence
medical issues
are increasingly denied.

3. Detention pressure increasing

Detained individuals face especially fast timelines, making legal defense extremely difficult.

4. Surge in in-absentia orders

TRAC data shows growing rates of removal orders for “failure to appear.”

5. Faster transition from NTA to merits

Lawyers in major cities like:

Los Angeles
New York
Houston
Miami
Chicago
report hearing dates being set weeks — not months — after NTA issuance.

6. Prosecutorial discretion disappearing

ICE trial attorneys have less authority to close or pause cases.

7. Judges expressing fear

NAIJ members have publicly stated that their colleagues avoid granting asylum because:

it triggers audits
it draws political attention
it risks employment consequences

This reflects a judiciary under pressure, not a neutral court.

L. The Human Impact: Who Is Hit First and Hardest

1. Asylum Seekers

Asylum already requires:

corroborating evidence
witness statements
expert declarations
country condition reports

Under fast-track “deportation judge” hearings, there is often:

no time
no preparation window
no meaningful opportunity to obtain counsel

Source for data trends:

TRAC Asylum Statistics

2. Mixed-Status Families

Marriage-based cases or hardship-based relief require time to gather evidence:

medical documentation
psychological reports
financial records
school reports for children
community letters

Time compression destroys this process.

3. Students and Workers

F-1, OPT, and H-1B cases can be pushed into removal quickly if:

status violations occur
employment changes
SEVIS records update incorrectly

4. Undocumented Community

People who have lived in the U.S. for 10+ years, with strong equities, will find it harder to:

qualify for Cancellation of Removal
secure hardship evidence
prepare a defense

5. Recently Detained Immigrants

Detention + “deportation judge” =
near-zero chance of meaningful due process.

M. Why This Is a Rule-of-Law Crisis (Not Just Immigration News)

Immigration courts are unique:

They are not Article III courts.
They are not independent Article I courts like bankruptcy or tax courts.
They are run by DOJ — a law-enforcement department.

The Attorney General can:

overturn decisions
bind all judges with precedent
issue policy memos
change rules without Congress

Reference:

Why “deportation judges” accelerate the crisis

They normalize enforcement-first adjudication
They reward speed, not justice
They weaken safeguards for families and asylum seekers
They advance political goals over impartial review

What the experts say

AILA: “The system is collapsing under political control. We need an independent Article I court.”
NAIJ: “DOJ control creates systemic due-process violations.”
NIJC: “Current EOIR structure produces coerced outcomes, not justice.”

The 2025 “Deportation Judge” Crisis FAQ

1. What is a “deportation judge”?

A “deportation judge” is the public-facing term used in DOJ recruitment ads to hire new immigration judges. The official job title remains Immigration Judge (IJ) within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). However, the branding strongly implies an enforcement-first role emphasizing fast removals.

Reference:
EOIR – Immigration Judges

2. Is a “deportation judge” the same as a traditional immigration judge?

Technically yes—but functionally no.
The recruitment ads emphasize:

speed
efficiency
removal decisions
“deciding who stays or must leave”

This differs sharply from traditional due-process-oriented adjudication.

3. Why is the term “deportation judge” alarming?

Because immigration judges are supposed to be neutral adjudicators.
Labeling them “deportation judges”:

signals a presumption of removal
undermines impartiality
rebrands courts as enforcement tools
influences new hires to prioritize speed over fairness

4. Who oversees immigration judges?

Immigration judges are employees of the Department of Justice, not independent courts.

Reference:
DOJ – EOIR Overview

5. Are immigration courts independent?

No. Immigration courts are administrative courts, not judicial courts.
They are subject to:

Attorney General supervision
DOJ priorities
politically influenced hiring and firing

AILA and NAIJ have repeatedly highlighted this structural flaw.

6. What did AILA say about EOIR independence?

AILA has stated for years that EOIR must be removed from DOJ because:

political interference compromises neutrality
quota pressure harms due process
decisions can be overturned by the Attorney General
judges face retaliation for fairness

Reference:
AILA – Immigration Court Reform

7. Did the Trump administration fire immigration judges?

Yes.
Multiple credible reports indicate that dozens of immigration judges were terminated or reassigned for being “too lenient.”

References:
NBC Bay Area
USA Today
Detroit News

8. Why were immigration judges fired?

Several were reportedly removed after:

granting asylum
issuing continuances
resisting prosecutorial pressure
exercising neutral judicial discretion

9. What is EOIR’s official explanation?

EOIR has not publicly confirmed the specific personnel decisions.
But DOJ hiring ads suggest the administration wants judges who:

work fast
maximize closures
focus on removing those without “meritorious claims”

This language is controversial because it implies a presumption of denial.

10. How does the Attorney General influence immigration law?

The Attorney General can:

certify BIA cases
set nationwide precedent
impose quotas
change hearing procedures
reassign or remove supervising judges

Reference:
EOIR – Attorney General Decisions

11. What are performance quotas for immigration judges?

Performance quotas require judges to complete a minimum number of cases per year.
Quotas pressure judges to:

deny continuances
rush hearings
reduce time for evidence

Reference:
AILA on Quotas

12. Why does this threaten due process?

Because complex cases (asylum, cancellation, hardship waivers) require time.
Quotas turn judges into case-processing machines rather than neutral decision-makers.

13. What is a “rocket docket”?

A rocket docket is an accelerated court schedule with:

compressed timelines
few continuances
rapid-fire hearings

Used heavily for:

families
recent arrivals
detained individuals

14. Does the new system increase in-absentia removal orders?

Yes.
TRAC data shows increases nationwide as hearing schedules accelerate and immigrants cannot obtain counsel in time.

Reference:
TRAC Immigration Court Data

15. Who is most affected by the “deportation judge” model?

Asylum seekers
Mixed-status families
Students (F-1)
Workers who fall out of status
TPS and DACA holders
Undocumented residents
Detained immigrants

16. Will asylum cases be heard faster?

Yes—and that’s a problem.
Asylum requires extensive documentation, and speeding hearings reduces fairness.

17. Can immigrants still get continuances?

Yes, but fewer.
Judges under pressure are granting fewer continuances across the country.

18. Do immigrants have the right to an attorney?

Yes—but not at government expense.
This means time compression disproportionately harms unrepresented immigrants.

Reference:
EOIR – Rights in Removal Proceedings

19. Are detained immigrants more vulnerable?

Extremely.
Detention accelerates hearings and limits:

attorney access
evidence gathering
family support

Detention + “deportation judge” model =
rocket removal pipeline.

20. How quickly can a hearing now be scheduled after receiving an NTA?

In some cities:

3–6 weeks for detained
6–12 weeks for non-detained

Other cities report even shorter timelines.

21. Does ICE have more power under this system?

Yes.
When courts accelerate, ICE obtains faster custody-to-removal routes.

22. What if someone misses their accelerated hearing?

In-absentia removal is almost guaranteed.
Reopening the case later is extremely difficult.

23. How does this affect mixed-status families?

Fewer continuances means:

less time to prepare hardship evidence
harder to secure relief
higher risk of removal before adjustments

24. What about marriage-based green card applicants in removal?

They must:

assemble full I-130 evidence
gather hardship evidence
seek joint motions with DHS
prepare aggressively for court

Less time = greater danger.

25. What about DACA recipients?

DACA remains vulnerable:

status lapses
late renewals
criminal accusations
can push recipients into fast-track removal.

26. How does it affect TPS holders?

Any lapse, mis-filing, or allegation can trigger:

NTA issuance
claims of ineligibility
accelerated EOIR placement

27. Are F-1 and OPT students at risk?

Yes.
SEVIS data errors or unauthorized employment may lead to expedited hearings.

28. Will people with old removal orders be targeted?

Reports indicate ICE is reactivating older orders in major cities.

29. Is there more ICE presence around EOIR courts now?

Yes.
Legal organizations have documented increased ICE presence around:

court entrances
parking lots
airport-based court facilities

30. Can ICE arrest someone at an EOIR hearing?

Yes—if the person has:

prior removal orders
criminal warrants
unresolved immigration violations
pending enforcement interest

31. Does rapid scheduling affect evidence collection?

Yes.
Hardship, medical, and psychological evidence often takes weeks.
Accelerated hearings make full evidence impossible.

32. How does the “deportation judge” model affect cancellation of removal?

Cancellation cases require:

extensive hardship evidence
tax records
school records
medical reports

Fast timelines devastate these cases.

33. Are voluntary departure decisions being pressured?

Lawyers report judges pressuring immigrants to choose voluntary departure instead of pursuing relief.

34. Will pro se immigrants struggle more?

Absolutely.
Accelerated hearings disproportionately harm unrepresented immigrants.

35. Are children in removal affected?

Yes.
Unaccompanied minors and children in mixed-status families face:

fewer safeguards
faster hearings
risk of family separation

36. Can lawyers request more time under due-process principles?

Yes.
But requests are increasingly denied unless:

medical emergencies
extremely strong cause
government consent

37. How do I verify my EOIR hearing date?

Use the automated hotline or online portal:

EOIR Hotline: 1-800-898-7180
EOIR Automated Case Info

38. What happens if I have evidence but need translation?

Accelerated timelines leave little time for certified translations, which can harm case strength.

39. Can I still request prosecutorial discretion?

It depends on local ICE Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) guidance.
But many offices have scaled back PD under the enforcement-first approach.

40. Are there risks at the biometrics appointment?

Generally no—but if someone has prior orders, ICE may use this as a location to detain individuals.

41. Can an attorney slow a case down?

Possibly, but:

continuances
administrative closure
remands
are becoming harder to obtain.

42. What if EOIR sends notice to the wrong address?

You must update your address on Form EOIR-33 within 5 days of moving.
Failure may lead to in-absentia removal.

Reference:
EOIR Change of Address Form

43. What if someone cannot attend court due to emergency?

You must file a motion to continue before the hearing, with supporting evidence.
But approval is not guaranteed.

44. How does the “deportation judge” model affect asylum seekers’ right to counsel?

It reduces:

time to find a lawyer
ability to prepare testimony
ability to gather country-condition evidence

45. Can someone be removed the same day as their hearing?

Yes, in detained cases.

46. How does this affect appeals to the BIA?

Fast-track denials increase appeals.
But the BIA is also under pressure to move faster.

Reference:
Board of Immigration Appeals

47. What if ICE refuses to join a motion to reopen?

Motions to reopen without government consent face higher denial rates.

48. Is an attorney absolutely necessary now?

Yes.
The system is designed for speed.
Representation is the single strongest predictor of success.

49. What steps should immigrants take immediately?

Hire counsel
Update address
Collect all identity documents
Begin relief evidence early
Confirm EOIR hearing dates weekly
Keep copies of all filings

50. How can someone get legal help quickly?

You can schedule a consultation with an experienced immigration attorney at:
Herman Legal Group – Book Consultation

Resource Directory

A. Government & Official Immigration Resources

EOIR / DOJ

DHS / USCIS / ICE

B. Media Coverage & Investigative Reports

Core Articles About “Deportation Judges”

Additional Context Sources

C. Herman Legal Group (HLG) Guides & Resources

Removal Defense & Courtroom Survival

Family-Based & Adjustment Resources

Enforcement & Red Flags

Interview, Registration & Compliance

Consultation Link

Book a Consultation – Herman Legal Group

D. Policy, Data, Economics & Civil Rights Organizations

Data + Research

Civil Rights + Government Accountability

Key Takeaways

EOIR is not an independent court — it is controlled by DOJ, making political re-engineering easy.
“Deportation judges” reshape the system into a removal-driven adjudication machine.
The term itself undermines the judicial posture of neutrality.
Firing career immigration judges further consolidates control over courtroom outcomes.
Quotas, rocket dockets, and speed mandates make slow, careful justice impossible.
Asylum seekers, families, students, and long-term residents face faster, harsher outcomes.
Continuances are being denied at higher rates, harming due-process rights.
Detained immigrants face extremely short timelines that make defense nearly impossible.
In-absentia orders are rising nationwide due to rushed scheduling.
This article exists because immigrants and their families need actionable guidance and real legal strategy, not slogans.
The Herman Legal Group provides representation in all EOIR jurisdictions nationwide — consultation link below:
- Herman Legal Group – Book Consultation

Success Stories

Trump Admin Runs Ads Seeking “Deportation Judges”: Conveyor-Belt Justice Drops the Veneer of Independent Judiciary, Rule of Law, and Due Process

Table of Contents