- Chicago’s immigration court lost half its judges through sudden firings and resignations during the Trump administration’s second term.
- A national shake-up resulted in the dismissal of nearly 100 judges, shrinking the nationwide corps by twenty-five percent.
- Attorneys and families face prolonged legal uncertainty as crowded calendars and reshuffled dockets delay critical removal proceedings.
(CHICAGO) — Chicago’s immigration court has lost roughly half its judges during President Trump’s second term through firings and resignations, thinning the roster for a system that decides whether people can stay in the United States.
Attorneys and respondents now face a court that can move more slowly and less predictably, as fewer immigration judges manage crowded calendars, rescheduled hearings and shifting dockets. The staffing losses also add uncertainty for families in removal proceedings who already wait months or years for decisions.
By late 2025, Chicago kept 14 immigration judges, a sharp drop from the start of Trump’s second term. Similar cutbacks have been reported in other parts of the country, widening concerns that the immigration court system will struggle to keep pace with its caseload.
Free toolUSCIS Receipt Number Decoder
July 2025 became a turning point in Chicago, when judges described sudden terminations that arrived without warning. Judge Carla Espinosa received her termination email while sitting on the bench in Chicago’s immigration court that month.
Judge Jennifer Peyton, who served as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, was also fired in July. Peyton later described the scope of the system’s backlog in blunt terms: “There’s literally millions — millions with an ‘m’ — millions of cases that are pending.”
Peyton said the Chicago losses fit a broader pattern she saw across the country. “New York is decimated. Chelmsford (Massachusetts) is decimated. The San Francisco court is decimated. Chicago is down half,” she said.
The wave of firings and resignations in Chicago has left daily operations vulnerable to disruption, with fewer judges available to take new cases or absorb hearings reassigned from departing colleagues. Courtroom schedules can churn as dockets get reshuffled, and lawyers can struggle to advise clients when hearing dates and the assigned judge can change.
Those effects land on people already navigating removal proceedings, where a continuance or postponement can prolong work, school and family decisions. A thinner bench also risks slower case movement, as remaining judges carry heavier calendars.
Chicago’s experience reflects a national shake-up of immigration judges that former judges described as a “purge” of the judiciary. Between February 4, 2025, and early 2026, the Trump administration dismissed nearly 100 immigration judges out of approximately 700 nationwide, with dozens more resigning or retiring.
Over the same period, the permanent immigration judge corps shrank from 726 judges and assistant chief judges on February 4, 2025, to 553 as of March 2026. The decline has raised operational questions about how courts reassign dockets, maintain institutional continuity and train newer judges as more experienced adjudicators depart.
Fewer judges can mean more reshuffling of existing calendars, along with delays when hearings must be moved to different judges or rescheduled. Even when cases proceed, frequent turnover can affect how quickly courts handle filings and how consistently judges apply legal standards across a changing bench.
Former judges have also raised concerns about what the firings signal for the judiciary’s independence. Peyton and others have challenged their terminations, and some have alleged discrimination based on sex, national origin, and political affiliation.
Those claims, and the broader pattern of firings and resignations, have intensified calls for an independent immigration judiciary. Advocates argue immigration judges should not fear retaliation for following the law and their conscience, and that stronger protections could insulate adjudicators from shifting political leadership.
Supporters of an independent immigration judiciary say changes in structure and employment protections would help judges make decisions without worrying about professional consequences tied to unpopular rulings. The debate has sharpened as courts absorb staffing losses while still carrying a massive caseload.
In Illinois, the Chicago-area terminations drew a public response that put individual judges at the center of the staffing story. Espinosa and Peyton appeared at a news conference hosted by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin to discuss their terminations.
Peyton’s role as an assistant chief judge, and the July 2025 firings, became focal points for those arguing that personnel instability threatens the court’s basic function. As firings and resignations continue to thin the ranks, the practical effect for respondents and families remains the same: more uncertainty about when their cases will be heard, and who will be sitting on the bench when they are.
