- The Justice Department appointed 42 new immigration judges to accelerate case completions and reduce the growing court backlog.
- Over one-third of the new cohort comes from immigration enforcement and prosecution backgrounds within the government.
- The administration has reduced the court backlog by 380,000 cases while removing over 100 previous judges.
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — The U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review announced on March 11, 2026 that it invested 42 new immigration judges, adding permanent staff to a court system the Trump administration has tied to faster case completions and deportations.
The new judges took their oaths during an investiture ceremony in the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C., marking one of the largest single cohorts of appointments in the immigration courts in recent months.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi framed the hires as part of an effort to speed decisions while emphasizing a strict approach to legal standards. “This Department of Justice has made reducing the immigration court backlog a top priority, and these 42 new highly qualified judges will help us deliver on that goal. Under the Trump Administration, immigration judges will decide cases based on the law – not politics,” Bondi said in a statement dated March 11, 2026.
Daren K. Margolin, the EOIR director, delivered remarks alongside Bondi and described the incoming class as joining an “immigration judge corps that is committed to upholding the rule of law” after a “robust training program.”
The appointments come as the immigration court backlog remains a central pressure point for the Justice Department and a recurring political flashpoint, with the administration treating judge staffing as a direct lever on case throughput.
EOIR’s role sits inside the Justice Department and covers immigration court proceedings, including removal cases and many asylum claims, while U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services handles benefits adjudication. That division shapes how the administration can address different kinds of delays, because adding judges affects court dockets rather than agency processing timelines.
In data released with the announcement, EOIR said that since January 20, 2025, it has reduced the immigration court backlog by over 380,000 cases. The agency did not provide additional detail in the announcement about how that figure breaks down by court or case type.
The judges will report to immigration courts in 17 states, reflecting a broad geographic spread that EOIR said includes assignments in places such as California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Virginia. EOIR also listed Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee among the states receiving new judges.
EOIR described the cohort’s professional backgrounds as heavily weighted toward government service, with a significant portion—over one-third—moving directly from immigration enforcement and prosecution roles. The agency said several appointees previously served as Assistant Chief Counsel for ICE or worked as military legal officers.
Those backgrounds have become part of a wider debate over immigration court outcomes and discretion, as critics argue that professional experience can shape how judges view credibility, continuances, and relief claims. EOIR did not address those criticisms directly in the announcement but highlighted training and what it cast as institutional commitments to professionalism and the rule of law.
The staffing move also comes against the backdrop of turnover inside EOIR since the administration took office in early 2025. Since then, at least 104 immigration judges have been fired or pushed out, with many others taking early retirement or buyouts, according to the information released alongside the March 11 announcement.
EOIR also described a shift in hiring compared with prior administrations, saying none of the 42 new judges were hired from the immigrant defense bar. The agency did not quantify how prior cohorts split between government and defense backgrounds, but it contrasted the new class with what it described as earlier approaches that balanced hires between private defense work and government.
To bridge staffing gaps, the Justice Department has also authorized the use of up to 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges for six-month terms, according to the same set of details released with the investiture announcement. EOIR did not say how many military lawyers have been deployed so far or where they have been assigned.
Bondi’s statement placed the hiring in the context of the administration’s broader push on court productivity, and her language underscored an emphasis on enforcement priorities as well as legal framing. The attorney general did not announce new performance metrics in her March 11 statement, but the Justice Department has pointed to judge staffing as central to increasing the pace of adjudications.
Margolin’s remarks, as described by EOIR, focused on training and institutional expectations for the new judges. The director’s references to a “robust training program” and a corps “committed to upholding the rule of law” aligned the appointments with a message of discipline and standardization across courtrooms that vary widely in caseload and local practice.
Still, people who practice in immigration courts say court speed is often shaped not only by how many judges are available but also by how judges manage calendars, continuances, and evidence deadlines, and by whether respondents can secure counsel in time to prepare filings.
In that context, training and internal expectations can influence what cases look like on the ground, especially in high-volume courts where master calendar hearings move quickly and individual hearings require extensive document preparation and witness coordination.
New training protocols reportedly encourage judges to adjudicate cases rapidly, with performance metrics tied to higher daily case completions than the prior average, according to the information circulated with the announcement. The Justice Department did not release the full text of those protocols in the materials provided with EOIR’s March 11 announcement.
Reports described additional procedural expectations that could affect asylum adjudication, including instruction to grant asylum only in “rare circumstances” and encouragement to decide cases without holding full hearings where possible. EOIR did not publish those training-session instructions as formal policy in the announcement, and the materials did not specify whether the guidance applies to all judges or only to the new cohort.
Legal advocacy groups said they worry that accelerating dockets can limit the time people have to find counsel, gather records, and prepare testimony, particularly in asylum cases where corroborating documentation may take months to obtain. The materials accompanying the announcement did not address how EOIR plans to manage those concerns while pursuing higher courtroom throughput.
The Advocates for Human Rights raised concerns that judges with enforcement backgrounds may grant asylum at lower rates, according to the information accompanying the March 11 announcement. The group’s comments were summarized, but no direct quote from the organization appeared in the materials.
EOIR did not provide new asylum grant-rate data in the announcement itself. It also did not describe how it would evaluate judge performance beyond the reported emphasis on quicker case processing.
For people in proceedings, the practical effect of more judges can be faster hearing dates in some courts, though outcomes also depend on local docketing practices and whether courts prioritize detained dockets, recent border arrivals, or long-pending cases. The Justice Department’s announcement did not specify which categories of cases the new judges will handle first.
Court operations have also drawn attention because many readers conflate EOIR with USCIS, even though the agencies sit in different departments and handle different parts of the immigration system. EOIR’s backlog and case-completion figures are court metrics tied to hearings and judge decisions, while USCIS timelines reflect processing for benefits such as work authorization and other applications.
EOIR directs readers seeking verification of the March 11 announcement and related court updates to its Justice Department pages, including the agency’s notices and press releases. The agency also publishes regular updates through its workload and adjudication statistics, which track court filings, completions, and pending cases.
USCIS posts separate updates on benefits policies and administrative changes through its newsroom, though those announcements do not reflect immigration court scheduling or EOIR docket movement.
