- New York judges are accelerating removal cases through massive ‘mega master hearings’ involving hundreds of respondents.
- National data shows sixty-five percent of cases in these large sessions resulted in deportation orders.
- A federal court ruling expanded expedited removal authority to include noncitizens arrested anywhere across the United States.
New York immigration judges are accelerating removal cases through densely packed hearings, including one April session where Judge Jem Sponzo issued orders against 25 minors in about three hours. Another New York docket listed 121 cases and ended with 39 people ordered removed in absentia in one day.
The scheduling practice, known as mega master hearings, brings dozens or more respondents before an immigration judge in a single master calendar session. Some dockets contain 100 or more people. Respondents who miss a changed hearing date can face deportation orders without appearing in court.
Lawyers and advocates say many cases move forward after respondents receive only a week or two of notice that their hearings have been rescheduled. A missed appearance can become an in absentia removal order, even when the hearing was primarily set to address scheduling or other preliminary matters.
The New York activity comes as the administration gains wider authority to use expedited removal. On June 23, 2026, a D.C. Circuit panel allowed the Trump administration to apply the process to noncitizens arrested anywhere in the United States, reversing a lower-court block issued in August 2025.
New York dockets are producing rapid case outcomes
Immigration courts use master calendar hearings to handle preliminary steps in many cases. The large sessions compress those steps into a shared docket, allowing judges to address numerous respondents on the same day.
In the April proceeding before Sponzo, 25 minors received removal orders during roughly three hours. The separate New York docket produced 39 in absentia removals among 121 listed cases.
Those numbers do not mean every case received a full individual trial. The practice can move cases toward a final order when a respondent fails to appear or when the judge decides the case on the record.
The scheduling changes create a narrow margin for people trying to track their cases. Updated notices may arrive shortly before the new date, and a respondent who relies on the original hearing date may reach court too late.
A national analysis found most mega-calendar cases ended in removal
Austin Kocher’s analysis counted about 30,000 cases completed in large master-calendar sessions nationwide during April and May 2026. Judges ordered removal in 65% of those cases.
The analysis found that respondents were absent for 85% of the removal orders. The figures place New York’s crowded calendars within a broader national effort to process immigration court dockets more quickly.
The hearings themselves are scheduling practices, not a separate category created by immigration law. Their legal effect can still be substantial. An immigration judge may issue a binding removal order when a person does not appear or when the judge otherwise resolves the case.
An in absentia order can be difficult to undo. A person facing one may need to seek reopening under the applicable immigration court rules and facts, and legal options can depend on the reason for the absence and the notice provided.
Judges are warning about asylum application defects
New York judges have also told respondents that minor defects in asylum applications can lead to summary dismissal under a Trump-era policy. That can move a case toward removal without the extended litigation many applicants might expect.
The combination of compressed scheduling and strict filings leaves respondents with less time to correct errors or obtain representation. A hearing notice, an asylum application and the court record can each affect what happens next.
Missing a hearing is not the only risk. A respondent who appears may still face a ruling if the judge determines that a filing defect or another procedural issue prevents the case from continuing.
The D.C. Circuit ruling expands a separate fast-track process
The June 23 decision concerns INA § 235(b)(1), the statutory authority underlying the administration’s expanded removal process. DHS regulations implement that authority.
The ruling allows DHS to use the process against noncitizens arrested anywhere in the country, rather than limiting it to people encountered near the border. The lower-court ruling had blocked the expansion in August 2025.
The D.C. Circuit decision binds courts within that circuit. It does not by itself resolve all litigation nationwide over the policy, and additional court action remains possible.
The two systems operate differently. Large master calendars are immigration court scheduling practices that can lead to orders when respondents miss hearings or judges decide cases. The DHS fast-track authority concerns how the department can remove certain noncitizens without the full immigration court process.
That distinction can affect which agency acts, which notice a person receives and which legal procedure may be available. People with a rescheduled hearing, an in absentia order or an asylum filing problem should consult a qualified immigration attorney promptly.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
