Why Using Military Lawyers as Immigration Judges Backfires

Former immigration judges and legal scholars are warning that a plan to place large numbers of military lawyers in immigration courts could harm due process and weaken trust in an already strained system. The concern centers on the Trump administration’s move to allow as many as 600 military lawyers—often Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers—to serve as temporary immigration judges, in some cases for six-month stints with shortened training.

Critics say immigration law is a complex field that demands specialized training and mentorship, and they argue that swapping in military personnel without that background risks unfair hearings, higher deportation rates, and erosion of judicial independence.

Why experience and training matter

Immigration judges handle life-changing decisions—asylum claims, cancellation of removal, and other relief types that often turn on fine points of law and fast-moving precedent.

• In normal hiring, immigration judges receive a structured introduction to the bench: approximately six weeks of training, a year of mentorship, and continuing performance reviews.
• Former immigration judges say military lawyers generally lack this focused preparation in immigration statutes, regulations, and case law.
• They note a Department of Justice policy change removed prior requirements that temporary immigration judges have immigration expertise, opening the door for broad assignments that may not match the needs of the court.

“Courtroom fairness is not just about keeping time and moving cases along; it is about giving each person a real chance to present their claim, access interpreters, and receive a decision based on the record and the law.”

Training and experience gaps

Those who spent years on the bench stress a simple point: immigration law is technical. It draws from the Immigration and Nationality Act, agency regulations, Board of Immigration Appeals precedent, and federal court decisions. It also demands careful handling of credibility, trauma, and cross-border evidence.

The typical training path builds that foundation; by contrast, assigning military lawyers for brief rotations with truncated training risks mistakes in core areas, including:

• Applying the correct burden of proof in asylum and withholding cases
• Assessing credibility with proper legal standards and trauma-informed practices
• Recognizing eligibility for relief, including waivers and protection claims
• Managing interpreters and evidentiary rules to ensure a complete record

Legal experts warn that short rotations also mean less continuity. If a judge changes mid-hearing, the record can become fragmented. A new temporary judge may not grasp prior testimony or rulings, increasing the chance of error. That can lead to more appeals and remands, slowing cases for everyone and, paradoxically, exacerbating backlogs instead of relieving them.

Due process, independence, and readiness

Former immigration judges say the due process risks are concrete. If a judge denies a critical continuance for an attorney to gather evidence, or if a court overlooks a defense because of unfamiliarity with case law, the result is not just a legal mistake; it can be a person separated from family or returned to danger.

• Immigration judges decide what evidence is admitted, which motions are granted, and when a case is ready for decision. Temporary assignments increase the odds of quick decisions over careful, reasoned ones.
• Judicial independence matters: immigration judges operate within EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) but must preserve the hallmarks of a neutral court—reasoned decisions, consistent standards, and insulation from direct policy pressure.
• Critics argue placing military lawyers—used to a command structure—on a civilian bench risks confusion about the judge’s role and could chill perceptions of impartiality.

There is also a military readiness concern. Assigning JAG officers to immigration courts could draw talent away from core military legal duties, including operational law, courts-martial, and command advice. Pulling dozens or hundreds of lawyers off mission—even for six months—can strain units and planning, potentially harming military readiness.

Institutional and systemic effects

Critics view the plan as politically motivated rather than aimed at impartial adjudication. They see it as part of a broader push to speed removals and increase deportations—an approach that may:

• Sideline complex humanitarian claims
• Prioritize volume over fairness
• Bypass solutions to underlying problems such as uneven access to counsel and limited resources

Some immigration lawyers worry about downstream consequences:

• More removal orders that later get overturned → increased workload from appeals and remands
• Faster case processing that pressures immigrants to give up claims or accept removal without full hearings
• Disproportionate harm to people with few resources, limited English, or trauma histories

Supporters of the plan have said little publicly; the administration frames the move as a practical staffing step. Critics answer that faster is not always better when courts decide whether someone can remain in the United States. They argue the real solution is to:

1. Hire and train permanent immigration judges
2. Provide adequate interpreters and staff
3. Ensure judges have sufficient time to hear cases properly

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, former judges warn that temporary fixes that bypass core training and mentorship will not hold up over time and may deepen the problems they aim to solve.

Human stakes in the courtroom

The human cost shows up in small, everyday moments:

• An asylum seeker asks for time to find counsel
• A parent seeks a translator to explain a police report from another country
• A worker tries to prove the timing of a departure and return that could determine eligibility for relief

In these rooms, details matter. A judge’s familiarity with immigration law can shape the entire course of a case. Critics say temporary assignments for military lawyers—who did not train or practice extensively in this area—raise the risk that such details get missed.

What the Department of Justice says and where to learn more

The Department of Justice maintains that EOIR manages the immigration courts and assigns judges as needed. For an overview of immigration court structure and responsibilities, readers can review EOIR’s official information page at the Department of Justice: Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Former judges counter that any staffing fix must:

• Build skill
• Preserve independence
• Support due process

They say the current approach fails to meet those benchmarks.

Bottom line and recommendations

For now, the proposal to send military lawyers into immigration courts faces strong skepticism from those who have run those courtrooms. Their bottom line:

• Without the right training and independence, the plan will backfire
• It will invite error, raise questions about fairness, and likely produce more appeals and remands
• It may also remove needed legal talent from the military at a time when readiness matters

In their view, a durable fix requires well-trained, career immigration judges, not short-term substitutions that put speed over justice. The immigration court system affects real lives—when people talk about “backlogs,” they are also talking about families in limbo and children waiting to learn if a parent can stay. That is why decisions about who sits on the bench must put due process first.