Unveiling the Paradox: Judicial Firings Amidst Calls for Expansion

New Round of Judicial Dismissals Sparks Alarm

A fresh wave of immigration judges received notifications of their termination on Friday, adding to a growing tally of personnel cuts within the immigration court system. This move comes as the administration intensifies its focus on accelerating deportations, a policy stance seemingly at odds with the need for a robust judicial body to process cases. Fifteen immigration judges were informed that their employment would conclude on July 22, as confirmed by individuals familiar with the situation and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), the union representing these judges. Those who disclosed this information requested anonymity due to concerns about potential retaliation.

Unexplained Terminations and Congressional Allocation

Similar to the approximately 50 judges discharged over the past six months, the recently dismissed judges were not provided specific justifications for their terminations. These individuals were nearing the end of their two-year probationary terms with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a branch of the Justice Department. Concurrently, a substantial number of other judges opted for a voluntary resignation program aimed at federal workforce reduction. This scenario unfolds shortly after Congress approved a comprehensive spending bill, earmarking more than $3 billion for the Justice Department, partly designated for the recruitment of additional immigration judges. This funding initiative was specifically intended to alleviate the mounting backlog of nearly 4 million cases within the system. Recruiting and training new judicial staff typically spans over a year.

Union Denounces Firings as Counterproductive

Matt Biggs, president of the IFPTE union, vehemently criticized the dismissals, deeming them "outrageous and against the public interest." He highlighted the inherent contradiction of terminating judges at a time when Congress has authorized an increase to 800 immigration judges. Biggs asserted that such actions impede the effective enforcement of immigration laws by removing the very individuals responsible for their implementation.

Pressure on Judges and Calls for Efficiency

In recent months, the leadership of EOIR has voiced criticism regarding judges' case management efficiency, encouraging them to expedite asylum reviews and deliver oral rather than written decisions on case dismissals. Furthermore, the executive has reportedly endorsed a proposal in Florida to deputize members of the state's National Guard Judge Advocate General's Corps to serve as immigration judges. Despite the perceived pressure, one of the recently dismissed judges, who wished to remain anonymous, stated their resolve to continue their duties until the very end, emphasizing their commitment to adjudicating cases fairly, whether granting relief or issuing deportation orders. This judge expressed no regrets about their tenure.

Legislative Scrutiny and Impact on Case Backlog

On July 3, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, both Democrats from Massachusetts, dispatched a letter to EOIR Acting Director Sirce Owen, expressing their apprehension over earlier dismissals that included judges from Massachusetts courts. They emphasized the need for conversion decisions to be based solely on judicial performance rather than perceived political alignment, noting that historically, 94% of judges are converted to permanent positions post-probation. At the beginning of the year, approximately 700 immigration judges presided over 71 immigration courts and adjudication centers nationwide. These judges possess the sole authority to revoke green cards or issue final removal orders for individuals residing in the country for over two years who are facing deportation proceedings. The ongoing terminations exacerbate concerns about the judiciary's capacity to manage the significant case backlog effectively and fairly.