Fort Snelling immigration court has begun consolidating dockets of 73 cases into single hearings, a practice advocates say is unprecedented and reflects an administration push to boost deportations. Over the past year, volunteer observers and court monitors have documented dramatic changes in how the court operates—from mega-master hearings and access restrictions to plummeting asylum approval rates—that reshape how you must prepare cases and advise detained clients.
What changed
The official posting of more than six dozen cases to be heard in one session marked a stunning shift in court procedure that immigration lawyers and advocates had for weeks feared would reach the Fort Snelling court after being tried in other jurisdictions. The sheer size of the docket, which was initially scheduled for a half-hour but ran much later, led to court observers being locked out of Judge Ivany’s courtroom. It wasn’t until some 50 cases had been processed over almost two hours that observers were allowed to enter.
Fort Snelling has now joined immigration courts in Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C. in cramming as many as 100 or more respondents’ initial hearings into one block of time, often with little notice of the change being given to immigrants.
Master calendar hearings are generally the first time an immigrant appears in front of an immigration judge. They function similar to an arraignment hearing in criminal court, focusing on procedural and administrative issues as well as scheduling future hearings.
Beyond docket consolidation, asylum approvals fell sharply at Fort Snelling immigration court due to rapid hearings and an aggressive push to clear the docket. Hearings that used to be three or four hours long are now two hours long. Immigration judges exceeded expectations nationally by resolving 239,154 cases, and 4,095 in Minnesota, nearly doubling the previous year’s totals.
Public access to hearings has also shifted. The lawsuit brought by the Advocates for Human Rights says the federal immigration court has prevented volunteer observers from witnessing these and other proceedings, leaving the public in the dark about the court’s actions, which include high-stakes decisions on deportation and asylum cases.
Why it matters
A disproportionate number of those in mega hearings are unrepresented by lawyers, feeding suspicion that the reshuffling of the docket is intended to speed up deportation orders. For your practice, mega masters create three immediate challenges:
Time compression: When 50–100 cases move through a master calendar in two hours, judges have minutes per respondent. You lose opportunity to properly raise bond issues, request continuances for evidence gathering, or develop alternative charges. Judges are under pressure to clear a backlog of cases by making quick rulings, often issuing summary judgments even before the full evidentiary hearings in which applicants and lawyers traditionally bring out their strongest arguments.
Notice failure: All 73 immigrants’ cases were to be heard at one hearing that day—with minimal advance warning to respondents or counsel. This compounds representation barriers for detained immigrants who may not know a hearing has been calendared.
Access restrictions: If observers are locked out, you lose the ability to monitor how your cases are being presented if you’re not physically present. Until Trump’s second term, access had been routine and cooperative. Since early last year, observers have found themselves outside locked doors, stuck in online video conferencing waiting rooms, and wondering what new rule will be posted on a wall or proclaimed by a guard.
Asylum denial surge: Asylum approvals are at record lows, and Minnesota’s immigration judges closed over 60% more asylum cases in 2025 as the year before. The speed-driven model correlates with declining grant rates.
Way forward
-
Monitor docket postings closely. Check the Fort Snelling court’s posted master calendar daily for case consolidation. When mega masters are scheduled, alert your client and prepare to argue for a separate hearing on due-process grounds.
-
Request written continuances in advance. If you learn of a mega master before the hearing date, file a motion for continuance citing lack of meaningful opportunity to be heard. Document the docket size in the motion.
-
Prepare bond arguments for master calendar. Because hearings are compressed, distill bond arguments to essentials: release plan, ties to community, no flight risk. Have documentation (employment letters, lease, family affidavits) pre-compiled.
-
Coordinate with court observers. Maintain contact with The Advocates for Human Rights’ Immigration Court Observation Project, which brings observers from the public into the Fort Snelling Immigration Court to observe and document immigration hearings and has been monitoring hearings since 2017 on detained, non-detained, and dedicated families and children dockets. They can document conditions and due-process gaps that may support appellate or habeas challenges.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney regarding your specific case. Immigration court procedures and policy can change without notice. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and current EOIR guidance at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/fort-snelling-immigration-court before filing or advising clients.