Since returning to office, President Trump has fired more than 100 of the approximately 750 immigration judges in place at the start of his term—a sweeping purge that critics say is undermining the integrity of the immigration court system. Former judges are now speaking out, alleging that the administration is pressuring judges to maximize deportation orders and deny asylum claims. The president of the National Association of Immigration Judges told The New York Times, “All of us are looking over our shoulders.”
This reshaping of the immigration courts goes beyond problematic policy; it represents a direct assault on due process and judicial independence. Legal experts argue it may even be illegal. By firing judges who grant asylum at higher rates—most of whom were appointed under Democratic administrations—the administration is effectively turning immigration courts into an enforcement arm of ICE. As the president stated last year, “We need judges who are not going to be demanding trials for every single illegal immigrant.” Stephen Miller, the architect of the administration’s immigration policies, went further: “The only process invaders are due is deportation.”
These statements contradict constitutional protections. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process to “no person,” and the Supreme Court has consistently held that this applies to all individuals in the United States, including undocumented immigrants. Congress designed the asylum and removal processes, and the executive branch cannot simply override those laws. This executive overreach violates the separation of powers. If the administration dislikes the current asylum system, it should work with Congress to change it—not fire judges for applying the law.
Immigration judges, though executive branch officials, are required by statute to exercise “independent judgment.” That independence is impossible in a climate of fear, where judges risk termination for rulings that don’t align with the president’s deportation goals. The administration’s willingness to ignore statutory protections against arbitrary firings only deepens the crisis. Meanwhile, hiring standards for new judges are being lowered, with the administration openly recruiting for what it calls “deportation judges.” These new hires need not have any immigration experience; they are expected to learn on the job while making life-altering decisions. One newly appointed judge in Minnesota was described by local media as one of the state’s “most unhinged right-wing social media posters” and a “right-wing conspiracy theorist.”
The impact is already visible. In February, the average rate of successful asylum cases plummeted to just 7 percent. While there is no objective standard for a fair approval rate, such a dramatic decline amid a purge of experienced judges raises troubling questions. The administration’s actions inject further chaos into a system already burdened by a backlog of more than 3.3 million cases. As The New York Times described it, this is an “unprecedented purge.”
True, the administration has the legal authority to fire immigration judges, since these courts are part of the executive branch, not the judiciary. But that authority is being abused to pack the courts with loyalists. In 2022, the Biden administration fired several Trump-appointed immigration judges, drawing bipartisan criticism. Yet the Republican outrage that followed Biden’s actions is notably absent now. The scale of Trump’s firings dwarfs Biden’s, and the consequences are far more severe.
Immigration judges hold enormous responsibility: they can halt or affirm removal orders, separate families, or prevent individuals from being sent back to dangerous countries. Any interference with their role demands scrutiny. Ideally, Congress would reform the immigration court system to ensure full independence, but that is unlikely before the midterms. In the meantime, lawmakers must demand that the administration stop its partisan meddling. Trump’s firing of immigration judges is improper, impractical, and a threat to the integrity of immigration courts. Judges must not be forced to choose between loyalty to the president and loyalty to the law.
