Key Takeaways
• DOJ terminated 20 immigration judges, including 13 not sworn in, during February 2025 restructuring efforts.
• U.S. immigration courts face over 3.7 million pending cases, with nearly 1.5 million asylum cases awaiting review.
• Reduction in immigration judges increases delays, complicates pending cases, and impacts fairness in immigration judicial proceedings.
In an extraordinary and contested move, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently confirmed a substantial reduction in immigration board members and judges. In February 2025, the DOJ terminated 20 immigration judges, including 13 individuals who had not yet been sworn in and five assistant chief immigration judges. These actions align with extensive restructuring efforts that trace their roots to the Trump administration, known for its significant impact on reshaping U.S. immigration policy. This decision has led to widespread concern around its effects on an already-burdened immigration court system, which is struggling under an enormous backlog of unresolved cases.
The Current Immigration Court Crisis
As of early 2025, the U.S. immigration court system is overwhelmed, managing over 3.7 million pending cases—an all-time high. Alarmingly, nearly 1.5 million of these are asylum cases, each requiring careful evaluation. The judicial system has long struggled under such immense loads, growing incrementally over the years. However, according to experts, the termination of immigration judges by the DOJ seems poised to exacerbate an already dire situation.
The lack of public explanation from the DOJ regarding these actions has only intensified confusion. The terminated 13 judges who had not yet been sworn in likely represented an attempt to resolve some of the staffing gaps, only to see their appointments abruptly canceled. Without clarity on whether these terminations are temporary or permanent, questions abound regarding the long-term legal and social consequences of these reductions. Speculations range from cost-cutting measures to aligning immigration courts more closely with administrative priorities. However, the lack of transparency has left the immigrant community, legal experts, and advocates grappling with uncertainty.
Impact of Personnel Reductions on Immigration Courts
Immigration courts rely heavily on judges to efficiently oversee and resolve cases. Before these terminations, judges were already under immense strain, with most handling between 500 and 700 cases annually. Despite this demanding workload, the DOJ’s removal of 20 judges leaves the remaining judiciary overwhelmed with even heavier caseloads, which could delay hearings for years. Immigrants awaiting decisions on crucial matters—such as asylum claims, deportation appeals, or visa issues—may face longer wait times. Such delays in due process not only impact immigrants’ lives and mental well-being but also undermine the efficiency and fairness of the legal system.
The administration’s stated goal of expediting deportations conflicts with the reduction of judges, which could ultimately slow the pace of adjudication. Reducing court personnel without a clear strategy to fill these vacancies risks creating bottlenecks that prevent timely resolutions.
The Trump Administration’s Role in Immigration Reforms
The recent move to terminate immigration judges finds roots in broader policy shifts initiated during the Trump administration. Immigration reforms under President Trump included regulatory updates, executive orders, and direct changes within federal organizations like the DOJ. For instance, in January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to reduce civil-service protections for certain federal employees, a measure that paved the way for dismissing government personnel deemed misaligned with administrative objectives. This broad restructuring directly impacted the immigration judiciary, as evidenced by the abrupt removal of high-ranking personnel, including Acting Director Mary Cheng and Chief Immigration Judge Sheila McNulty.
These dismissals, coupled with the government’s reduced hiring of new judges, indicate a restructuring effort aimed at aligning the judiciary with specific political and administrative goals. Critics argue that such moves may politicize the immigration courts, compromising their independence and integrity. By creating a system where legal staffing is influenced by executive priorities, the courts risk losing public confidence in their impartiality.
Moreover, the dismissals highlight the prioritization of efficiency over fairness. Immigration courts are uniquely tasked with balancing the rights of vulnerable populations—including asylum seekers and those fleeing persecution—with the government’s interest in enforcement. Without adequate staffing, these courts are less likely to meet this balance.
What Stakeholders Are Saying
The decision to eliminate judges has sparked strong reactions from stakeholders, particularly legal professionals and advocacy groups. For instance, Matthew Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), described the terminations as “inhumane,” emphasizing the personal and systemic impacts of such restructuring. Advocates like Biggs argue that such abrupt dismissals erode the professional dignity of affected judges and undermine the court system’s ability to function effectively.
Organizations like the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) have also voiced concerns, warning that reducing judicial staff could lead to longer delays and increased legal disputes. Without adequate resources to handle existing caseloads, the legal process may become more unpredictable, inviting scrutiny of decisions made under time and resource constraints. Immigration lawyers fear that hastily processed cases may lead to poorer outcomes, prompting more appeals and complicating the already-overloaded appellate system.
Immigration advocacy groups have highlighted the human cost of these delays. Immigrants—often disadvantaged by language barriers, financial challenges, and psychological stress—are forced to wait longer for decisions that directly affect their future. The delayed resolution of these cases prolongs the uncertainty faced by individuals and families, destabilizing communities and perpetuating anxiety.
Unintended Consequences and Broader Challenges
The DOJ’s reduction of immigration judges appears to solve one problem only to create deeper, systemic challenges for the nation’s courts. Experts warn that the absence of clear planning for replacements or other logistical adjustments highlights a short-sighted approach that fails to account for the multifaceted nature of maintaining an effective immigration judiciary.
Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at AILA, has been particularly vocal about the implications of these staff reductions. He argues that dismissing judges without addressing existing backlogs does not serve the administration’s objective to expedite deportations and other legal resolutions. Reduced judicial capacity, he claims, will only deepen delays and erode access to due process for immigrants. Chen’s concerns are shared by many within the legal community, who view these terminations as potentially jeopardizing the integrity of U.S. immigration policy.
The politicization of the judiciary under the Trump administration has also raised alarms among scholars and legal experts. By terminating immigration judges and board members, the administration risks creating an impression that judicial systems are mere extensions of executive policy—a shift that could weaken public trust in the fairness of U.S. courts. Immigration law, by its very nature, involves sensitive matters of human rights and global responsibility. A judiciary perceived as partisan could face growing resistance and frequent legal challenges.
The broader implications of these decisions may extend beyond immigration policy. Critics worry that these terminations could set a dangerous precedent for other federal programs reliant on independent decision-making. The normalization of judicial restructuring for political purposes could ultimately weaken the separation of powers that supports a balanced governance system.
Path Forward
Looking ahead, several key questions remain regarding the fallout from the DOJ’s decision to terminate immigration judges. First, will the administration take steps to replace the terminated judges and strengthen the judiciary? If so, how long will these efforts take, and will the replacements bring sufficient relief to an already-overwhelmed court system? Second, how will legal professionals and advocacy groups address the resource and fairness deficits stemming from reduced personnel?
For now, the consensus among experts, legal stakeholders, and immigrant communities is clear: the United States immigration court system requires immediate reinforcement, both in staffing and in broader policy alignment. The enormous backlog of pending cases and the reduced judicial workforce represent a critical challenge for the nation’s legal and moral priorities.
Conclusion
The reduction of immigration judges under the DOJ represents a turning point in U.S. immigration policy and legal administration, further amplifying the challenges faced by immigration courts. While framed as streamlining the system, these dismissals appear to conflict with the overarching aim of enhancing judicial efficiency. As underscored by Greg Chen and other experts, reducing staff in a court system already grappling with high caseloads diminishes access to fair, timely hearings, and undermines confidence in the judiciary.
Immigrants facing legal uncertainty are now caught in a legal system with reduced capacity and longer wait times, complicating their pursuit of justice. The impact extends beyond individuals to the broader trust in the U.S. judicial framework, which must remain transparent, independent, and accessible. Further analysis and actions are needed to balance systemic efficiency with the human rights considerations central to immigration law. For more information on the U.S. immigration court system and its operations, readers can refer to the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s official site.
Learn Today
DOJ → United States Department of Justice, responsible for legal and judicial administration, including immigration courts.
Immigration Judges → Judicial officials specialized in cases involving immigration matters such as asylum, deportation, and visa disputes.
Asylum Cases → Legal cases where individuals seek protection from persecution in their home countries under international law.
Backlog → Accumulation of pending legal cases exceeding the capacity of courts to process them in a timely manner.
EOIR → Executive Office for Immigration Review, oversees immigration court proceedings within the U.S. Department of Justice.
This Article in a Nutshell
In February 2025, the DOJ terminated 20 immigration judges amid record backlogs. With 3.7 million pending cases, this move intensifies court delays. Critics highlight severe consequences for immigrants, judicial efficiency, and due process. Stakeholders demand accountability and clarity regarding future staffing plans. Transparency remains critical in restoring trust in U.S. immigration courts.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Immigration Advocates Struggle with Trump Administration Measures
• How Canada’s Caregiver Immigration Program Supports Families
• Canada examines immigration’s role in shaping its economy
• Ireland Immigration System Updates Employment Permits Platform
• Donald Trump policies drive growth of private immigration detention
