- The DOJ proposed a tiered system of fines for contempt in immigration courts starting July thirty, twenty twenty-six.
- Individual penalties range from one thousand to thirty-five hundred dollars per contempt order issued.
- Government employees are exempt, while attorneys and respondents face sanctions for disorderly conduct or delays.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) proposed a tiered system of fines for people who defy an immigration judge’s authority, including attorneys, accredited representatives, noncitizen respondents and witnesses.
The proposal appeared in the Federal Register on July 30, 2026, as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled “Civil Money Penalty for Actions in Contempt of an Immigration Judge’s Proper Exercise of Authority.” It carries the citation 91 FR 47979.
Free toolUSCIS Receipt Number Decoder
The rule would implement authority Congress granted under INA Section 240(b)(1), as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That authority has remained largely dormant for three decades.
The department said judges need stronger tools to control hearings.
“It is crucial for immigration judges to have every tool available—including the authority to impose civil money penalties—to control the proceedings before them and help deter detrimental conduct that may affect such proceedings.”
The statement appeared in the proposal on July 29, 2026.
The proposed fines would rise after each contempt order
Proposed 8 CFR 1003.126 would establish three penalty ranges. A first contempt order could carry a fine of $1,000 to $1,500. A second could bring $1,500 to $2,500, while subsequent orders could reach $2,500 to $3,500.
The schedule is cumulative by order. The rule does not limit the targets to lawyers.
Immigration attorneys, accredited representatives, respondents in removal proceedings and witnesses present in court could all face sanctions. A noncitizen ordered removed could therefore face a fine while also trying to pay for legal representation and other case expenses.
Federal government employees would be exempt. That category includes Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys, according to the proposal.
Late hearings and ignored orders could trigger sanctions
The proposal identifies several types of conduct that could support a contempt order. They include repeatedly arriving late for hearings, disregarding written orders, disorderly behavior and false statements.
Judges would have to follow a defined process before imposing a fine. The framework calls for a mandatory warning, written findings and a separate contempt record. It also provides an internal appellate process.
Those safeguards address concerns that helped keep the statutory authority unused. Previous administrations hesitated to activate the power because of due process concerns and the potential for abuse.
The proposed sanctions would mark a new role for immigration judges. They are DOJ employees, rather than independent Article III judges, yet the rule would give them direct authority to impose financial penalties in their courtrooms.
Defense lawyers say the exemption creates an uneven courtroom
The American Immigration Lawyers Association, identified in the proposal’s criticism, has characterized the measure as a “scare tactic.” Critics say defense attorneys could be intimidated by the prospect of fines while government prosecutors remain protected by the exemption.
The criticism focuses on the unequal exposure. A private lawyer, an accredited representative or a respondent could face a penalty for conduct a judge considers contemptuous. A DHS or ICE attorney could not receive the same contempt order under the proposed rule.
The amounts could also affect a respondent’s ability to maintain a defense. A penalty of up to $3,500 per incident could add to the financial pressure already facing immigrants in removal proceedings.
The proposal would extend beyond courtroom discipline. Repeated failure by a practitioner to pay an ordered penalty could become a new basis for discipline under proposed 8 CFR 1003.102(x).
The administration is presenting the measure as courtroom control
The current administration, led by DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, has described the effort as a response to “fraud and abuse.” Officials have also framed it as a way to preserve “the just and balanced rule of law” through stricter control of immigration proceedings.
The statutory authority dates to 1996, but the proposed regulation would supply the operating rules needed to use it. Those rules cover the penalty amounts, contempt findings, records and appeals.
The department is now seeking public input. Written electronic comments are due by September 28, 2026, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov under Docket No. EOIR-26-AB02.
The proposal is listed as RIN 1125-AB02. Until the rulemaking moves forward, the stated fine schedule remains part of the proposed framework rather than a penalty already imposed in immigration court.
