U.S. immigration courts have undergone significant personnel changes over the past year, marked by the termination of numerous judges and the implementation of new hiring practices. These shifts have been accompanied by legal challenges from terminated judges, legislative proposals from congressional Democrats, and concerns from former judges and legal analysts regarding judicial independence, due process, and increasing case backlogs. The Department of Justice (DOJ) states its actions aim to restore integrity to the immigration adjudication system and enhance efficiency.
Significant Personnel Overhaul in Immigration Courts
Between 2023 and 2024, the Department of Justice terminated a number of immigration judges, with some notifications reportedly occurring during ongoing court proceedings. NPR independently identified 70 immigration judges who received termination notices from the Justice Department between February and October, a count that aligns with data from the union representing immigration judges.
The DOJ, however, disputed this figure, indicating a number fewer than 55, but did not provide additional details to reconcile the discrepancy.
Overall, the number of permanent immigration judges in the U.S. court system decreased by approximately a quarter in the past year. As of February 4, 2025, there were 726 permanent immigration judges; this number has since fallen to 520 permanent immigration judges and 33 assistant chief immigration judges, a reduction of 202 judges even after accounting for new hires. In addition to judges, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees immigration courts, experienced the departure of over 400 legal assistants, attorney advisers, and legal administrative specialists.
Specific judges reported receiving termination notifications, including Kyra Lilien (Concord, Calif., July 2023), Anam Petit (Annandale, Va., September 2023), and Tania Nemer (Cleveland, February 2023). Terminations reportedly occurred every few months, often targeting judges nearing the end of their two-year probationary period, though some judges serving beyond probation were also terminated. For example, Shira Levine, who had served since 2021, reported her termination in September 2023 without being given a reason. Former Assistant Chief Immigration Judges were also among those terminated.
Emerging Patterns in Terminations and New Appointments
An analysis of 70 terminated immigration judges indicated that approximately 44% had prior experience defending immigrants without previous work history at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This figure was more than double the proportion of terminated judges who only had prior work history at DHS. Conversely, an analysis of judges onboarded between February 2023 and November 2024, who were nearing or within their probationary periods, showed that judges with prior DHS experience constituted the largest share of those remaining on the bench. An analysis of 10 newly promoted courthouse supervisors indicated eight had prior experience with DHS.
Terminated judges, such as Jeremiah Johnson, a San Francisco immigration judge terminated in 2023, reported receiving no prior indication of performance issues.
Johnson stated he was "fired for doing my job." Some judges suggested their terminations might be related to decisions on certain policy applications.
The DOJ has since moved to reinstate some immigration judges, characterizing prior dismissals by the Biden administration as potentially "unfairly dismissed." Matthew O'Brien and David White were reinstated in Virginia immigration courts.
New hiring initiatives include the appointment of Daren Margolin as the new director of EOIR in October. The DOJ also announced a class of 25 temporary judges who are military lawyers from the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAGs), with plans for up to 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary judges. An analysis by Mobile Pathways, a legal nonprofit, indicated that JAG judges have issued removal orders at a higher rate than other judges. One JAG judge, Christopher Day, who reportedly granted asylum and relief from deportation at a higher rate than his JAG counterparts, was removed from his position.
Incoming permanent judges primarily consist of individuals with backgrounds in federal government work, including EOIR and DHS, such as trainers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, asylum officers, and ICE legal arm employees. Recruitment materials for these roles have included phrases such as "Define America for generations" and "restore integrity and honor to our Nation's Immigration Court system," and a recruitment campaign for "deportation judges" used the slogan, "Deliver justice to criminal illegal aliens. Become a deportation judge. Save your country." None of the incoming permanent judges appear to have prior experience in immigrant defense.
DOJ's Official Position and Rationale
A DOJ spokesperson stated that the agency does not 'target' or 'prioritize' immigration judges for personnel decisions based on prior experience. The spokesperson affirmed that DOJ evaluates all judges based on factors such as conduct, impartiality, adherence to law, productivity, and professionalism.
The spokesperson also noted that immigration judges are 'inferior officers' appointed and removed by the Attorney General, pursuant to Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
The administration has stated its actions are aimed at "restoring integrity to our immigration system by following the law, timely completing cases, and hiring the most talented legal professionals to join in our mission to protect national security and public safety." EOIR has denied allegations of prioritizing judges inclined to order deportations, asserting that judges are bound by legal, ethical, and professional obligations to act impartially. Kathryn Mattingly, an EOIR spokeswoman, stated that reducing the immigration court backlog is a high priority for the agency.
Mounting Backlogs and Court Disruptions
The personnel changes have contributed to an existing backlog of nearly 4 million immigration cases, with each terminated judge potentially leaving behind thousands of cases. These cases are often reassigned, resulting in new court dates extended as far as 2029 or 2030.
The San Francisco Immigration Court is scheduled to close by the end of the year, with personnel transferring to the Concord Immigration Court approximately 30 miles away. An EOIR spokesperson indicated the move is intended to be more cost-effective. The San Francisco court experienced a significant reduction in judges, with 12 judges and a court supervisor receiving termination notices last year, reducing the court from 21 judges to four judges and one supervisor. The remaining San Francisco judges manage approximately 120,935 immigration cases.
Nationally, 12 immigration courts have lost over half of their judges, and two courts, Aurora, Colorado, and Oakdale, Louisiana, currently operate with no active judges apart from a court supervisor.
Immigration lawyers have expressed concern that these delays make clients more vulnerable to arrests and deportations.
Legal Challenges and Legislative Action
Terminated judges have pursued various avenues for clarification, including Freedom of Information Act requests, wrongful termination complaints, and lawsuits. Tania Nemer, a former immigration judge, filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., alleging her dismissal was discriminatory based on her gender, her status as a dual citizen of Lebanon, and her past political activity. She asserts these factors violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the First Amendment.
Nemer's attorney, Nathaniel Zelinsky, stated the government's legal position argues that the President's authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to oversee the executive branch supersedes core civil rights legislation for federal employees. Nemer's formal discrimination complaint with an Equal Employment Opportunity office was dismissed, with the office asserting a conflict between Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the president's power to remove federal workers. Nemer's lawsuit seeks reinstatement, backpay, and nullification of her termination.
Democrats in Congress, including Senator Adam Schiff and Representative Juan Vargas, have introduced legislation aimed at establishing specific qualification criteria for temporary immigration judges. The proposed bill would empower the Attorney General to appoint temporary judges only if they meet professional standards, such as having served on appellate panels, being an administrative judge in another agency, or possessing a minimum of 10 years of experience in immigration law. This legislation would affect the administration's plan to deploy military lawyers as temporary immigration judges, a plan that removed previous requirements for immigration law experience for these roles. The proposed legislation currently lacks Republican co-sponsors.
Former immigration judges and legal practitioners have expressed concerns that appointing individuals without prior immigration law experience could result in a significant learning curve and potential due process issues. Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, noted that the administration's approach to immigration courts reflects a prioritization of immigration enforcement.
Dana Leigh Marks, a former immigration judge, concluded that presidential administrations will continue to influence personnel decisions as long as immigration courts remain within the executive branch.