English 
Português 
Español 
The dismissal of more than a dozen immigration judges across the United States within just a few weeks during 2025 has reignited a sensitive debate: to what extent do the administrative courts that decide the fate of millions of immigrants maintain independence from the Executive Branch. The waves of terminations—combined with resignations from sitting judges amid the explosive growth of the case backlog—are calling into question the system’s ability to guarantee due process to those facing deportation.
The movement directly affects the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of Justice agency responsible for administering immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. Unlike federal judges protected by Article III of the Constitution, EOIR judges are Executive Branch employees hired under a probationary period of up to two years, making them especially vulnerable to political pressure.
What is happening in immigration courts
By mid-2025, at least seventeen judges had been dismissed across multiple jurisdictions, including Massachusetts and California. In Chelmsford, Massachusetts, the number of sitting judges dropped from eighteen to seven in just six months—a reduction of more than sixty percent that is directly reflected in hearing timelines. Other courts reported proportional cuts.
Several of the dismissed judges stated in interviews with American media outlets that they received termination letters without formal justification, at times close to the end of their two-year probationary period. Some described pressure to rule on motions to dismiss in ways aligned with government policy rather than strictly legal criteria.
The institutional weight of the EOIR
The EOIR operates more than seventy courts across the United States. Its judges decide asylum applications, cancellation of removal, defensive adjustment of status, and various motions in cases involving non-citizens under removal proceedings. Although their decisions can be reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and, ultimately, by federal circuit courts, in practice most cases end exactly where the administrative judge decides.
The structure is peculiar: the judge reports administratively to the Attorney General—that is, to the highest political authority within the Department of Justice. The Attorney General also holds the power to certify individual cases and overturn them—a tool used by different administrations to set binding precedent on sensitive issues such as asylum categories based on domestic violence or standards of prosecutorial discretion.
Why judicial independence is critical
The guarantee of a neutral decision is at the heart of the due process provided under the Fifth Amendment. Even undocumented immigrants have a constitutional right to present a defense before an impartial authority before being removed. When judges perceive that keeping their position depends on ruling in line with the expectations of those who hired them, that pillar is weakened.
Unions representing immigration judges—such as the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers—have denounced the dismissals as threats to the integrity of the system. Immigrant advocacy organizations, including the National Immigrant Justice Center and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, warn that the loss of experienced judges amplifies already-documented disparities in asylum grant rates across courts.
The backlog that makes the problem worse
Public data maintained by the TRAC Immigration Project at Syracuse University show that the pending case queue in immigration courts exceeds three million seven hundred thousand cases. In some courts, the average wait time between the first hearing and the final decision exceeds five years.
Each dismissed judge represents, in practice, thousands of cases that must be redistributed. In already-saturated jurisdictions, this means postponed hearings, extended periods of uncertain status for those awaiting decisions, and prolonged detention time for those in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
How hiring and the probationary period work
Entry into the judiciary career follows a selection process administered by the EOIR. After appointment, the judge serves a probationary period of up to two years, during which they can be dismissed without the full administrative due process protections available to permanent civil servants. That window is precisely the vulnerability identified by the judges dismissed in 2025: most terminations reportedly occurred near the end of the probationary period, before job security had been established.
Implications for immigrants in ongoing proceedings
For those awaiting an asylum hearing, defensive adjustment of status, or a cancellation of removal application, this situation demands heightened attention. Judge changes mid-proceeding are common during periods of high turnover and can affect the consistency of decisions. Individual hearings may be rescheduled, filing deadlines may be compressed, and in some courts, local practice regarding the granting of continuances may change abruptly.
Anyone in proceedings should keep documentation organized, monitor the EOIR’s Automated Case Information system to confirm hearing dates, and carefully weigh the strategy of requesting a change of venue, since courts with high turnover may have even more distant hearing dates.
Reforms under discussion
Proposals to remove the EOIR from the Department of Justice and transform immigration courts into an independent Article I court—similar to the U.S. Tax Court—have been circulating in Congress for years. The idea is to give judges stability equivalent to that of federal magistrates by removing them from the Attorney General’s chain of command. Bills such as the Real Courts, Rule of Law Act have been introduced in multiple legislative sessions but have never advanced far enough to become law.
Without structural reform, the system will continue to shift according to the political orientation of each administration, and episodes like the 2025 dismissals are likely to recur. For the immigrant community and their legal representatives, the recommendation is to closely follow professional associations and reports from organizations such as TRAC Immigration and AILA, which systematically document court performance metrics.
What to watch going forward
The pace of future terminations, the speed of new EOIR hiring, the proportion of judges still in their probationary period, and the evolution of the backlog will be direct indicators of the system’s institutional health. Asylum cases in particular are especially sensitive: academic literature shows enormous disparity in grant rates among different judges in the same court, and the rapid replacement of judges can amplify that inequality.
For readers with an interest in immigrating to the United States, the key takeaway is straightforward: immigration courts do not function like the traditional American judiciary. They are an arm of the Executive Branch, and their decisions depend heavily on which judge is assigned to the case and on the policy priorities of the current administration. Advance legal planning based on robust immigration categories reduces exposure to this unpredictability factor.
Victoria Harper
Editor-in-Chief
Leading journalism and editorial content at Visto n’ Visa, Victoria helps make immigration topics clear, trustworthy, and easy to understand. Her focus is on delivering useful, human, and relevant content for people exploring new paths abroad.
