The Department of Justice is proposing to finally implement long-dormant statutory authority that would let immigration judges sanction lawyers and their clients for contempt of court. The Executive Office for Immigration Review published a Proposed Rule on civil money penalties for contempt that is scheduled for publication on 07/30/2026. This move comes after months of federal district judges threatening contempt charges against government lawyers for violating court orders in immigration enforcement cases.
What changed
The proposed rule would amend Department of Justice regulations by implementing the statutory authority given to immigration judges to sanction by civil money penalty any action or inaction in contempt of the judge’s proper exercise of authority. Immigration judges have had this authority in statute since 1996, but the DOJ never issued implementing regulations. Every year from 2006 through 2016, the DOJ said it intended to draft such a regulation, but no rule was implemented.
The rule, once finalized, would allow immigration judges to impose fines on both government attorneys and private counsel—as well as litigants themselves—who flout court orders or engage in conduct that obstructs the administration of justice.
Why it matters
For years, this gap in immigration judges’ power has frustrated the bench. One Minnesota federal judge noted she expects “100% compliance” from government lawyers going forward, and wrote that “the court has been ‘exceedingly patient’” but that “the refrain of ‘understaffing’ and ‘too many cases’ has worn out its welcome.” She added that she would never allow a private attorney to rely on an “I’m too busy” excuse to justify disobedience of a court order.
For practitioners, the stakes are direct. Once this rule is final:
- Your client can be fined for missing hearings, ignoring deadlines, or violating the judge’s orders.
- You can personally be sanctioned—with daily fines—if you fail to comply with immigration court orders, even unintentionally.
- The bar for willfulness is lower than in federal district court: willfulness is not required to impose coercive civil contempt sanctions.
This tool will likely reshape case management in immigration court, especially in high-volume dockets. Judges may use it as a leverage point to enforce compliance, similar to how federal district judges have recently threatened it.
Way forward
- Review the proposed rule carefully once it publishes on 07/30/2026. The Federal Register notice will include the text, rationale, and an invitation to comment. Do not assume the final rule matches the proposal.
- Monitor the comment period. You will have 30–60 days (typical for immigration rulemakings) to file comments, especially if you foresee problems or conflicts with existing caseload realities.
- Prepare your practice. Audit your docket for chronic deadlines you miss or orders you struggle to follow. If staffing is an issue, document it and consider whether you need to adjust intake or case assignment now—before the rule is final.
- Brief your clients. Explain that immigration judges will have new power to fine them (or you, which you will pass on) for noncompliance. This may raise client compliance expectations and your fee arrangements.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Please consult a licensed attorney in your state for advice on how this proposed rule may affect your specific cases. This summary is based on the Federal Register Public Inspection notice and may not reflect the final text or any changes made during the rulemaking process. Always verify against the official Federal Register when the rule publishes, as policy can change without notice.