MPI Reforms to Break Dysfunction in U.S. Immigration Courts

The Migration Policy Institute on Thursday urged sweeping changes to the nation’s immigration courts, saying “the cycle of dysfunction” will deepen unless the federal government shifts money and focus toward expanding adjudication capacity for asylum and removal cases. The brief warns that the backlog now exceeds more than 3 million pending matters and that the system’s thin staffing—just about 700 immigration judges nationwide—means people wait years for decisions that should come in months.

The authors call for an “urgent need to reprogram resources” from recent congressional boosts to enforcement into courtroom capacity, arguing that the current approach is starving the bench of tools to deliver timely and fair outcomes while pressure builds on border communities and families waiting for answers.

Core recommendation: expand hiring and support staff

MPI places hiring at the center of its recommendations, pointing to a straightforward problem: too few judges and too little support.

• Add more immigration judges.
• Expand the legal and clerical teams around judges (interpreters, legal assistants, technology specialists).
• Increase resources to allow more hearings without cutting corners on due process.

These steps would lead to:
1. More hearings completed each day.
2. Fewer continuances.
3. Steadier, better-reasoned rulings.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, adding personnel at every level translates directly into improved throughput and less time wasted on administrative slowdowns.

Structural reform: Article I courts for independence

MPI urges a structural change: move immigration courts out of the Department of Justice and create independent Article I courts (similar to tax or bankruptcy courts).

• Purpose: shield judges from political pressure and avoid case-completion quotas that push hurried decisions.
• Rationale: independence would help rebuild public trust by ensuring rulings rest on law and facts rather than shifting policy signals.
• Note: the brief does not single out any one administration for blame but points to political interference and chronic underfunding as systemic issues.

Independence, MPI says, would help rebuild public trust in immigration courts by ensuring that rulings rest on law and facts, not on shifting policy signals from above.

Restore judges’ docket-management discretion

MPI highlights the need to restore tools judges once had to manage dockets effectively.

• Reinstate administrative closing and termination without prejudice where appropriate.
• Allow judges more flexibility to pause or narrow cases when noncitizens pursue other relief.

Benefits:
– Prevent simple matters from consuming the same scarce court time as complex claims.
– Let judges focus limited courtroom time on contested asylum and removal cases needing full hearings.
– Improve fairness by allowing people with alternative pathways to pursue them outside removal proceedings.

Expand legal representation

Legal representation is described as a pillar of a functioning court system.

• Remove barriers for attorneys and legal service organizations.
• Ease restrictions on noncitizen advocates where appropriate.
• Expand public support for legal aid.

Why it matters:
– Represented cases move faster: paperwork is more complete, evidence is organized, and hearings stay on track.
– Unrepresented respondents often require judges to slow proceedings to explain procedures, adding time to crowded dockets.
– Improved access to counsel strengthens both efficiency and fairness.

Upgrade technology and docket management

MPI calls for modernizing court technology and scheduling systems.

• Implement wider use of digital case tracking.
• Use video and phone hearings when appropriate.
• Adopt smarter scheduling tools and better metrics to predict hearing length.

Advantages:
– Reduce continuances when witnesses or counsel face travel or health barriers.
– Make it easier to check case status, file documents, and prepare efficiently.
– Enable courts to fit more cases into each day without sacrificing careful decision-making.

MPI frames technology as a necessary upgrade, not a shortcut, to align immigration courts with modern judicial practice.

Improve coordination with USCIS

Closer coordination between immigration courts and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can cut duplication.

• Share information and clarify which agency should handle overlapping steps.
• Ensure courts have reliable channels to reflect USCIS decisions (e.g., when USCIS approves a benefit that affects removability).

This is framed as a low-cost way to reduce backlog by eliminating redundant work and preventing cases from bouncing between agencies.

Human and community impacts

The brief emphasizes the human toll of delay.

• Noncitizens often wait years, unable to plan for family, work, or school while their fate remains unresolved.
• Legal clinics and local governments are stretched by uncertain timelines.
• Long waits do not yield better decisions, and rushed hearings do not meaningfully reduce backlog.

MPI’s prescription: stable funding and modern management so each case gets the attention it needs—no more, no less.

Cause analysis: policy swings and capacity shortfalls

MPI points to cycles of policy shifts that destabilize court functioning:

• Imposed case completion targets or limits on docket tools pressure judges to accelerate cases beyond what complexity allows.
• When those pressures ease, delays accumulate and create new surges.
• The brief argues for building sufficient baseline capacity so short-term policy changes do not tilt the whole system.

In settings where liberty and family unity are at stake, MPI stresses that independence and resources are as crucial as any single policy adjustment.

Budget alignment: match enforcement with adjudication capacity

MPI urges Congress to align spending with outcomes.

• Recent enforcement budget increases should be matched by funds for courts, judges, interpreters, clerks, and updated systems.
• “Reprogram resources” means investing in the adjudicative infrastructure so enforcement actions are followed by adequate capacity to adjudicate.

Without balance, enforcement fuels a pipeline the courts cannot process, making enforcement appear less effective.

Oversight and modernization within current structure

Officials at the Department of Justice oversee immigration courts through the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). MPI’s recommendations advocate both for Article I status and for immediate modernization within current structures.

• For official information on court operations, see the Executive Office for Immigration Review: https://www.justice.gov/eoir.

MPI’s combined recommendations aim to move the system toward predictable, less politicized functioning—built on steady staffing and transparent rules rather than last-minute directives and emergency fixes.

Final framing and numbers

Throughout the brief, MPI uses stark language—“break the cycle of dysfunction,” “urgent need to reprogram resources,” and a warning that without change, “the backlog and dysfunction will continue to grow.” These are presented as the analysts’ diagnosis after reviewing court data and case outcomes.

Key figures:
– More than 3 million pending cases
– About 700 immigration judges

MPI’s recommended path—independence, discretion, legal representation, modern technology, and cross-agency coordination—is designed to narrow the gap between caseload and capacity so immigration courts function fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the rule of law.