Immigration advocates, attorneys and major news organizations allege public access to immigration courts is being narrowed despite federal rules that generally make hearings open to the public. An investigation by the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at Arizona State University — based on courtroom observations, court records and interviews — has found that public access is often determined not by law, but by the discretion of individual judges, court staff and security officials. These restrictions, which often go beyond what the law allows, now face legal challenges.
What changed
Just months after President Donald Trump began his second term, courtroom doors were locked to outside observers at Fort Snelling Immigration Court in Minnesota. Since 2017, volunteers with The Advocates for Human Rights had sat in on the court’s immigration hearings as part of a court monitoring program. But in October 2025, courtroom doors were locked, video conference access was cut off and observers were given shifting explanations about whether they could watch proceedings, according to a federal lawsuit filed by the group in March.
On Feb. 9, 2026, at the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona, security officers and court staff told Howard Center reporters that attendance at all hearings required judicial approval. This appeared to depart from the language in the February 2026 fact sheet from the Executive Office of Immigration Review, or EOIR, which stated, “Visitors are not required to check in with court personnel before entering a courtroom to observe, although the presiding Immigration Judge may ask all visitors to identify themselves at the start of the hearing.”
Courtroom doors began locking. Signs appeared declaring hearings closed, sometimes citing confidentiality rules that didn’t apply to the cases behind the door. Observers who stepped out during a recess found themselves locked out for the rest of the session.
Why it matters
Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27, a Justice Department regulation from 1987 states plainly that all hearings shall be open to the public, with narrow exceptions: when space is limited, with the press given priority; to protect a witness, a party, or the public interest; at the request of an abused spouse; or when a case involves a protective order.
If courtroom access is being restricted based on individual discretion rather than these statutory grounds, practitioners face unpredictable barriers to:
- Observing client hearings in real time to monitor due process
- Preparing for proceedings through courtroom observation protocols
- Documenting patterns of judicial conduct or procedural irregularity
- Engaging court observers and third-party advocates as part of investigative or support strategy
The investigation shows that recent EOIR guidance and facility-specific rules have stretched restrictions beyond the enumerated exceptions, with judges and court administrators increasingly exercising broad discretion to close proceedings, often without clear, case-specific justification.
Way forward
- Check the specific immigration court’s access policies in advance. Contact the local EOIR facility directly to confirm current visitor and observer procedures; do not assume the national rule applies uniformly.
- Document access denials in writing. If you or a court observer are denied access without a clear statutory basis, request a written explanation citing the specific regulatory exception relied upon.
- Monitor ongoing litigation. A lawsuit recently filed in Washington, D.C., by The Advocates for Human Rights, a Minnesota-based nonprofit, has run an immigration court observation project in the Minneapolis area since 2017. AHR filed suit against then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and immigration court officials, arguing that the DOJ had violated the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and its own regulations by continually blocking public access to immigration court proceedings. Track rulings in that case and any related district or circuit decisions for precedent on open-court rights.
- Escalate through EOIR leadership. If facility-level access barriers conflict with national EOIR policy memoranda, file a written complaint with EOIR’s Office of Policy or consider Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain internal guidance documents.
Disclaimer
Fola Editorial is software, not a law firm, and this article is not legal advice. Immigration policy and procedures change without notice, and facility-level rules may vary. Always verify current access policies directly with the immigration court you plan to visit, consult the primary source linked above, and work with a licensed immigration attorney on any matter affecting your immigration status or proceedings.