The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has executed a sweeping removal of immigration judges amid the Donald Trump‑administration’s aggressive push to shut down what it views as a broad asylum loophole. While figures vary, one report puts the number of judges fired at more than 80, though DOJ counters that the figure is under 55.
Reports indicate that in recent months dozens of immigration judges under the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) began receiving notices of termination or non‑renewal—some of them right after their probationary period ended or before being sworn in. The firings span states including California, New York, Maryland, Washington and Texas. Critics argue this move risks undermining due‑process protections just when the immigration‑court backlog is at historic levels.
The DOJ responded to the reporting by saying it does not “target” or “prioritise” judges for removal based on their background, prior rulings or how many asylum cases they granted. It stated that immigration judges are evaluated on conduct, impartiality, adherence to law, productivity and professionalism, and that they serve as “inferior officers” appointed and removable by the Attorney General under Article II of the Constitution.
Supporters of the policy note the enforcement shift aligns with the Trump administration’s goal of cracking down on what it calls rampant abuse of the asylum system. They point to data showing rising numbers of denied asylum claims and deportation orders, and a shrinking backlog of cases as evidence the changes are working. The administration has characterised the reductions in the judge corps as part of a broader reform to speed adjudication and relieve the backlog.
Opponents warn the purge of judges threatens judicial independence and impartiality. They describe a culture of fear among court employees, where terminations appear to correlate with resistance to fast‑track removal policies. Some veteran judges argue that replacing experienced adjudicators with novices or political appointees risks due‑process violations and undermines the integrity of the immigration court system.
This development will remain under close scrutiny as the administration advances major changes in immigration adjudication. It raises profound questions about the balance between enforcement objectives and the rule of law, patience for the court system’s institutional safeguards and the future role of immigration judges in the U.S. justice system.
