America’s Immigration Courts Are Losing Legitimacy: Congress Must Act Before the System Collapses
Guest blogger: Cristian Urzola, student, University of San Francisco School of Law
As immigration enforcement intensifies under the current administration, something deeper than fear is spreading through American communities---mistrust. Not only undocumented immigrants, but also teachers, pastors, social workers, legal advocates, and even immigration judges themselves are beginning to question whether the immigration court system can still be called a system of justice at all.
The concern is not only about harsh policies but about structural imbalance. Immigration judges do not enjoy the same protections as federal or state judges. They are employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ), reporting ultimately to the Attorney General, the same authority responsible for prosecuting immigration cases. In any other context, this would be considered a blatant violation of separation of powers. No criminal defendant would accept a trial where the prosecutor is also the boss of the judge. Yet this is how immigration justice is administered every day in the United States.
This dependence has serious consequences. Today, there are over three million pending cases in immigration court, and outcomes often depend more on geography than on the merits. In Atlanta, asylum is denied in over 99.6 percent of cases; in San Francisco, approval rates exceed 31.8 percent. Such disparities erode faith in adjudication and reinforce the perception that immigration law is driven by politics, not principles.
The situation has worsened as political pressure has escalated inside courtrooms. Since the beginning of President Trump’s second term, over 100 immigration judges have resigned, been terminated, or involuntarily reassigned, according to the National Association of Immigration Judges. Many have publicly denounced internal directives that encourage dismissal of asylum applications without holding full hearings, such as EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-28 (April 2025). Another memorandum issued in July, EOIR PM 25-42, went so far as to remind judges that they are “inferior officers” subject to appointment and removal by the Attorney General.
These directives are not mere bureaucratic adjustments, they signal a judiciary increasingly subordinated to executive policy demands. And as this reality becomes more visible, public trust is deteriorating. Across major cities, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, communities are organizing legal defense networks, refusing voluntary cooperation with enforcement agencies, and discouraging individuals from appearing before immigration authorities out of fear of arbitrary detention.
A judicial system that society no longer trusts ceases to be a system of justice and becomes an instrument of control. If order and the rule of law are truly the goal, then judicial independence is not an obstacle, it is the foundation.
Fortunately, the solution already exists. Congress can and must establish an independent Article I immigration court system, as proposed in the bipartisan Real Courts, Rule of Law Act. The American Bar Association, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and major legal organizations support this reform. It would not eliminate enforcement; it would legitimize it.
Without action, the immigration court crisis will evolve into an institutional crisis affecting the credibility of the judiciary itself. Congress must act now, not to weaken immigration policy, but to ensure that justice is not merely enforced, but believed.
