Advocates Sue to Open NYC Immigration Courts, Citing Lack of Public Accountability

(NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK) — The Advocates for Human Rights filed a federal lawsuit challenging what it called unlawful public closures at NYC Immigration courts, alleging that hearings in New York City and elsewhere have been shut off from public and press scrutiny through locked courtrooms and blocked virtual access.

The complaint, filed on March 12, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as Case No. 1:26-cv-00865, names the case The Advocates for Human Rights v. Bondi et al. It alleges a systemic effort to seal immigration proceedings from outside observation, with particular attention to court operations at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan.

The legal challenge has sharpened a dispute over whether immigration hearings, which can decide deportation, detention and asylum claims, should remain open to independent observers. Advocates say blanket closures have made it harder to monitor courtroom conduct, confirm hearing access and detect procedural problems that can alter case outcomes.

At the center of the lawsuit are claims that, since early 2025, immigration courts in New York City and other locations including Fort Snelling, Minnesota, moved toward “blanket closures of entire case dockets,” leaving hearings inaccessible to the public. The suit also alleges that people seeking to observe proceedings encountered locked courtroom doors and “men in masks” who said a federal judge had barred access, though no such order was produced.

Observers also faced barriers when hearings moved online, the complaint says. In Webex proceedings, it alleges, members of the public were often left in “virtual waiting rooms” indefinitely and never admitted.

Executive Office for Immigration Review spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly declined to address the case directly. “The Executive Office for Immigration Review declines to comment on litigation-related matters,” Mattingly said on March 17, 2026.

Mattingly has previously said, “Immigration courts are created by statute and regulation and are not constitutional courts of public record,” a position that advocates say has been used to justify what they describe as a blackout of proceedings. That disagreement now sits at the center of the lawsuit and a broader argument over transparency in immigration adjudication.

The court-access fight has emerged as the immigration court system undergoes broader internal change. Since late 2025, legal experts cited in the dispute have described a wider reshaping of the system, including claims that more than 100 immigration judges were fired or forced out after being viewed as “subversive” or having high asylum-grant rates.

Critics say those changes matter because immigration judges operate inside the Justice Department rather than an independent judiciary. Against that backdrop, limits on public access have drawn added scrutiny from lawyers and civil rights advocates who say courtroom openness serves as a check on official power.

The dispute also comes after Chief Immigration Judge Teresa Riley issued a memo on January 14, 2026, instructing judges to refrain from granting bond hearings, even in cases where federal district courts had explicitly ordered them. That directive has become part of a wider debate over how much discretion immigration judges retain and how far central leadership is steering courtroom practice.

Another recent ruling added to that pressure. On March 8, 2026, a federal judge in Amica Center v. EOIR temporarily blocked a rule that would have shortened appeal windows to 10 days, calling the lack of meaningful consideration “unlawful.”

That ruling fed concerns among advocates that compressed procedures and reduced public access can work together to narrow due process. In the New York lawsuit, public observation is framed not as a side issue, but as a safeguard against hidden errors and unchecked departures from normal practice.

The concern is especially acute in fast-moving dockets. Advocacy groups have warned that some nationalities, including Somalis, are being routed into fast-track proceedings with near-100% denial rates, making outside scrutiny more important when cases move quickly and stakes are high.

Families and attorneys can also struggle to confirm where and when a hearing will take place when courtroom access becomes unreliable. Advocates say that has contributed to more in absentia removal orders, issued when a respondent does not appear, because people cannot reliably verify hearing details.

Public access, in that view, serves several functions at once. It allows legal observers to monitor whether judges follow procedure, gives families a way to track cases, and creates a public record of how enforcement policy is carried out in practice.

The lawsuit says at least one judge cited “security concerns” in January 2026 when closing a courtroom after a high-profile DHS-ICE shooting in Minneapolis. Advocates call that explanation a pretext for avoiding accountability rather than a lawful basis for broad closure.

Department of Homeland Security officials have not addressed the New York court-closure allegations directly, but the department has tied its public messaging to wider enforcement priorities. On March 18, 2026, a DHS spokesperson, responding to a separate federal ruling involving Temporary Protected Status, said judicial interventions were preventing the administration from “restoring integrity” to the immigration system and added, “Temporary means temporary.”

That language reflects the administration’s broader posture as it presses ahead with immigration enforcement initiatives now being tested in court. While not directed at the New York access dispute, it provides a window into how the department is defending its approach as litigation widens.

EOIR leadership has also framed its mission in enforcement terms. In a press release announcing new judicial appointments on March 11, 2026, EOIR Director Daren Margolin said the agency was focused on “effectively implementing the administration’s plan to enforce the immigration laws of the United States, as passed by Congress.”

For advocates, statements like that heighten the need for open proceedings. They argue that when agencies emphasize execution of an enforcement agenda while public access narrows, the risk grows that hearings will be viewed less as neutral adjudication and more as an arm of removal policy.

The phrase “No accountability,” now attached to the fight over NYC Immigration courts, captures that concern. It reflects criticism that federal oversight mechanisms have been weakened at the same time that courtroom transparency has come under pressure, though the lawsuit itself focuses on access to proceedings rather than those broader structural changes.

What makes the New York case stand out is the combination of physical and digital barriers described in the complaint. A locked courtroom door can keep a monitor out just as effectively as a Webex waiting room that never opens, and advocates say the effect is the same: a proceeding with no meaningful public check.

In immigration court, that absence can carry immediate consequences. Bond decisions affect whether a person remains detained. Merits hearings determine whether someone wins asylum or faces deportation. Appeal deadlines can determine whether a ruling ever receives review.

The recent sequence of events has turned court access into a national legal issue. A January 14, 2026 directive on bond hearings raised alarms about judicial independence. A March 8, 2026 federal ruling blocked a shortened appeal window. Four days later, on March 12, 2026, The Advocates for Human Rights brought its transparency lawsuit in Washington.

Taken together, those steps intensified scrutiny of immigration court operations well beyond New York. The closures alleged at 26 Federal Plaza became one part of a larger fight over who can watch immigration proceedings, how much discretion judges still hold, and how visible the system remains as policy shifts accelerate.

The case may also test how far EOIR can rely on its view that immigration courts are not constitutional courts of public record. Advocates are challenging not a single closed hearing, but what they describe as a pattern of blanket exclusion that conflicts with public accountability and the role of open proceedings in protecting fairness.

Because the litigation is moving alongside rapid policy changes, lawyers and court watchers are likely to look for official updates from the agencies and the court docket itself. EOIR posts notices and statements in its EOIR newsroom, while DHS releases department responses through its newsroom.

The federal case can be tracked through PACER, using the search prompt The Advocates for Human Rights v. Bondi. In a dispute over whether the public can see what happens inside immigration court, the official filings and agency statements have become part of the fight themselves.