The Trump administration’s removal of more than 100 immigration judges is undermining the independence of the courts and the U.S. justice system, a panel of independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council said on Thursday. More than 100 immigration judges out of about 700 have been fired or pushed out since President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. This staffing crisis directly affects how you manage removal cases and advise clients on timing and litigation strategy.
What changed
The U.N. panel called for the administration to stop what it described as “the mass arbitrary removal” of immigration judges and the continued politicization of immigration courts. They said the firings raised concerns that the judges were being targeted on the basis of their perceived political affiliation, professional background or adjudicative record.
The group said the departures had reduced the number of judges available to handle a surge in cases as the administration ramps up arrests and deportations. An official at the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review said the agency continually evaluates all immigration judges on factors, including conduct and impartiality.
Several former immigration judges have sued the Justice Department for wrongful termination.
Why it matters
The loss of 100+ judges from a bench of roughly 700 creates an operational bottleneck that will ripple through removal proceedings. The panel said it was concerned that the White House was transforming the immigration court system “from a forum for independent, individualized adjudication into an instrument for implementing deportation objectives.”
For your practice, this means:
- Docket delays: Fewer judges handling higher caseloads will lengthen wait times for hearings, affecting client release decisions, work authorization eligibility during pendency, and continuance strategy.
- Bias and impartiality arguments: The UN panel’s findings about political targeting and alleged lack of impartiality provide documentary support for judicial bias motions and recusal petitions in your own client cases.
- Systemic dysfunction claims: Wrongful termination litigation signals legal vulnerability in how judges are hired and removed, potentially supporting Accardi-type arguments about departure from established procedures.
- Reputational effect on adjudication: A court system perceived as politicized may face heightened scrutiny from appellate bodies (BIA, federal courts) reviewing the record for evidence of bias.
Way forward
- Audit your pending docket: Check EOIR’s case status portal for your clients’ hearing dates; longer waits may create new options (e.g., work permit eligibility, changed country conditions, new case law).
- Document judicial patterns: If you notice one judge ruling systematically against certain client groups, preserve the record (transcripts, orders) for bias and impartiality challenges in current and future cases.
- Monitor pending litigation: Track the wrongful termination suits against DOJ-EOIR; any settlement or adverse ruling could create precedent or factual findings useful in your removal defense.
- Prepare for continuances: With docket congestion, file continuance motions early and strategically, especially if delays work in your client’s favor (asylum country conditions, new precedent, BIA backlog).
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is not a law firm. Always consult a qualified immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before relying on any information in this article. Immigration policy and judicial procedures are subject to rapid change; verify all facts and deadlines against the primary source linked above and current EOIR / USCIS guidance before advising or representing a client.