(UNITED STATES) President Trump’s administration has removed over 100 immigration judges since January 2025 and is moving to replace them by hiring “any attorney,” with selection decisions reportedly guided by Pam Bondi, a close political ally and former Florida Attorney General. As of August 2025, the number of active immigration judges has fallen from over 700 to approximately 600 nationwide. The stated goal is faster decisions and more removals, while cutting the backlog that has strained immigration courts for years.
Officials have ended many judges’ jobs at the close of their two-year probation periods, often without giving reasons. Several judges known for granting relief in asylum and other cases believe they were singled out. Among them is former assistant chief judge Jennifer Peyton in Chicago, who has publicly criticized the firing wave as political retaliation.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, which runs the courts inside the Department of Justice, has declined to comment on personnel moves or internal policy shifts. EOIR’s official information on court operations remains available to the public on the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) website.
Changing Culture and Case Counts
According to internal guidance described by current and former staff, the agency’s culture has tilted toward faster enforcement. The backlog dropped from over 4.1 million cases at the start of 2025 to about 3.8 million cases by midyear.
Critics say this drop is driven less by complete hearings and more by:
– Expedited removal
– Case dismissals that clear dockets quickly
– Increased no-shows — sometimes driven by arrests at or near courthouses that scare people away from hearings
Some legal service groups add that courthouse arrests have raised fears, contributing to more in-absentia orders.
Scale of Firings and the New Hiring Plan
The volume of firing since January is rare in the immigration courts’ modern history. Immigration judges are federal civil servants who normally enter through a competitive, merit-based process. They face a two-year probation, after which they typically gain stronger job protection. This year, dozens have been let go at that probation mark.
Others say they were warned that grant rates in asylum cases would be closely scrutinized. Several former judges interpret the message as: move faster, deny more.
In that context, the plan to hire “any attorney” to refill the bench marks a sharp departure from past practice. People familiar with the plan say Pam Bondi is playing a central role in choosing replacements, potentially bypassing traditional vetting designed to test courtroom experience, independence, and temperament.
Concerns raised by bar groups and former immigration officials:
– Erosion of judicial independence and impartiality
– Bypassing evaluation of courtroom experience and temperament
– Potential selection of ideological allies or private practitioners with limited asylum or removal-defense backgrounds
Supporters’ counterpoints:
– Any licensed attorney can learn the docket and apply the law
– The swollen caseloads demand quick staffing fixes
– They point to the early backlog dip as proof that tougher case management can move files off the shelf
VisaVerge.com reports the proposed hiring shift would expand the pool beyond seasoned trial lawyers and former prosecutors, drawing from a wider set of attorneys.
Impact on Cases and Communities
The on-the-ground effects reach far beyond statistics. A typical removal case involves hard choices about:
– Family unity
– Protection from harm
– Long-term work and study plans
With fewer judges on the bench and an influx of new hires under pressure to move cases, hearings are:
– Shorter
– Tighter in schedule
– Harder to continue
Attorneys in border states report:
– Packed master calendar hearings
– Compressed merits hearings (the day a person tells their full story)
Consequences for respondents:
– Asylum-seeking parents may have less time to gather evidence (medical records, police reports, country conditions)
– Green card holders with old offenses may have fewer opportunities to seek relief
– People who miss hearings (due to fear, illness, or confusion) risk in-absentia orders that are difficult to reopen
Advocates and legal services report:
– Reduced access to legal help as nonprofits stretch to cover more hearings with less notice
– Private attorneys advising clients to focus on basics: show up early, bring every document, and expect same-day decisions
Community groups worry more people will be deported without a full opportunity to present their case.
Political and Legal Reactions
Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Dick Durbin, have condemned the firing pattern as an abuse of power. They argue that pressuring immigration judges skews a court system that sits inside the executive branch.
Several fired judges are weighing legal action, citing:
– Civil service protections
– The appearance of political interference
The Department of Justice has not addressed these claims publicly.
Supporters of the administration say:
– The court system needs a reset
– Past efforts to clear the backlog fell short
– Delays can pull in more migrants, so faster closures are justified
They also argue tough docket control:
– Deters weak claims
– Helps those with strong claims by producing quicker final decisions
Business groups, however, warn a harsher court climate could:
– Remove workers
– Split families
– Add stress to labor markets already short on staff
Court Structure and Broader Proposals
Key institutional facts:
– Immigration courts are not Article III courts
– They sit inside the Department of Justice
– Immigration judges serve at the Attorney General’s pleasure during probation
This structure:
– Allows quick hiring and removal
– Also invites political influence into case management
Longstanding proposals:
– Bar associations and former immigration leaders have urged Congress to create an independent immigration court, similar to the tax court, to protect due process
– Such proposals face political obstacles in a polarized Congress
What This Could Mean Going Forward
If “any attorney” can be tapped:
– The bench may shift toward adjudicators who prioritize rapid resolutions over lengthy records
If Pam Bondi and other political appointees guide selections:
– Observers expect more judges with prosecution or enforcement backgrounds
If EOIR maintains shorter dockets and tight continuance rules:
– The backlog may fall faster — but critics warn of more wrongful removals
The months ahead will test whether a leaner bench and a looser hiring net can clear dockets without harming fairness.
Practical Advice for Immigrants with Pending Cases
- Keep all addresses current with the court to avoid missed notices.
- Arrive early for hearings and bring paperwork in order.
- Ask for an interpreter if needed.
- Seek a lawyer or accredited representative — even a short consultation can clarify options.
- Check official updates on the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) website for court closures, filing rules, and contact details.
The country’s immigration judges sit at a difficult crossroads: under pressure to move faster, yet sworn to apply the law case by case, person by person. As policy shifts continue, people’s futures — families, jobs, and safety — hang on what happens next inside America’s immigration courts.
