In a move sparking legal and political alarm, the Trump administration has reportedly fired 17 immigration court judges in recent days across 10 U.S. states, according to a statement by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), the union representing immigration judges.
The terminations come as the administration escalates its mass deportation strategy and intensifies pressure on the already strained immigration court system.
Union Decries Firings as Baseless and Harmful
The union reported that 15 judges were dismissed last Friday, with two more removed on Monday, July 14, despite no known misconduct or performance-based issues.
These judges were stationed in immigration courts across California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
“It’s outrageous and against the public interest that at the same time Congress has authorized 800 immigration judges, we are firing large numbers of immigration judges without cause,” said IFPTE President Matt Biggs. “This is nonsensical. The answer is to stop firing and start hiring.”
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that oversees immigration courts, declined to comment on the firings.
Courts at the Center of Deportation Efforts
The firings come amid a broader effort by the administration to speed up deportations. Immigration courts have increasingly become key sites for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity, including in-court arrests of immigrants immediately after judges dismiss removal proceedings.
In some cases, ICE officers reportedly wait outside courtrooms to detain individuals as they exit, bypassing longer procedural timelines.
This aggressive enforcement strategy has caused widespread fear among asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants, particularly those who appear in court without legal counsel.
Immigration courts are not part of the judiciary branch; they fall under the executive branch and do not guarantee a right to government-appointed counsel, leaving many defendants to represent themselves—often with language barriers and limited resources.
Meanwhile, the system faces an unprecedented backlog of 3.5 million pending immigration cases, with final hearings frequently delayed more than a year.
Senator Alleges Political Retaliation
Among the fired judges was one based in Chicago, who allegedly lost her position after speaking with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) during his recent visit to the city’s immigration court.
Durbin, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the firing “an abuse of power.”
“Her abrupt termination is an abuse of power by the Administration to punish a non-political judge simply for doing her job,” Durbin said in a press release Tuesday.
According to Durbin, after his visit, the judge received an email from DOJ instructing her not to communicate with members of Congress and later learned her position had been terminated.
Firings Undermine Court Expansion, Union Says
Ironically, the firings come as immigration courts prepare for a significant funding boost. Under recently passed legislation that allocated $170 billion for enhanced immigration enforcement, immigration courts are slated to receive $3.3 billion to increase capacity—aiming to hire up to 800 immigration judges.
Yet, the union says the administration’s firings undermine this objective. Since 2017, more than 103 immigration judges have either resigned or been removed—many under pressure to accept “Fork in the Road” early exit offers during the early days of the Trump presidency.
With only about 600 judges currently on the bench, the IFPTE warned that mass firings could deepen the case backlog. The union notes it can take up to a full year to recruit, vet, and train new immigration judges.
Legal and Institutional Concerns Mount
Legal scholars and immigration rights advocates say the move raises serious questions about judicial independence and due process in administrative courts.
While immigration judges are DOJ employees and not Article III judges, their quasi-judicial role requires impartiality, which critics argue is being eroded by politically motivated terminations.
The situation is reminiscent of previous controversies under the Trump administration, including efforts to impose case quotas on judges and restrict their discretion.
