Changes in Immigration Courts: Military Lawyers Replacing Civilian Judges 

Written By: Rebekah Roux 

Broad History Surrounding Immigration in the United States 

Immigration policy in the United States has long been shaped by the executive branch, which holds significant discretion over how immigration law is enforced. The approach to immigration enforcement and relief often reflects the priorities of the sitting president. For example, President Obama used executive authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), providing temporary relief for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. An additional example includes President Trumps executive order 13769, providing a temporary suspension of travel into the United States from seven countries. These executive actions highlight the dominant role of presidential power in steering immigration policy. 

The structure of immigration courts is a direct result of this executive oversight. Immigration courts fall under the Department of Justice, part of the executive branch, as opposed to Article III federal judges. This administrative structure makes them more vulnerable to executive influence and easier to remove or reassign. As a result, the current administration has taken an unprecedented approach to solving the growing immigration case load.  

Solutions in Recent History 

Currently, the U.S. faces a staggering backlog of 3.8 million pending immigration cases as of Q3 2025. Immigration judges are expected to process 500–700 cases annually, often under significant pressure to meet demand. In recent years, presidents have typically responded to the backlog by increasing the number of immigration judges (IJs). President Biden appointed approximately 340 new immigration judges during his term, a strategy also employed during Trump’s first term. However, this method alone has not resolved the growing backlog, prompting more aggressive solutions. 

Unprecedented Changes in the Current Term 

In a broad effort to expedite immigration proceedings, the Department of Justice has implemented a final rule significantly loosening the requirements to serve as a Temporary Immigration Judge (TIJ). The previous requirements for a temporary immigration judge was to have at least 10 years of immigration law experience, have served as a former immigration or appellate immigration judge, or to have served as an administrative judge within another executive branch agency. But the new final rule passed by the Department of Justice will allow any attorney, even with no immigration experience, to serve as an IJ. This has led to the authorization of over 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges under these revised qualifications. 

This plan of attack is coupled with the removal, involuntary transfer, or early-out acceptance from 139 immigration judges since the beginning of the Turmp administration’s current term. Dozens more have resigned under the administration’s “Fork in the Road” voluntary separation program. A consequence of these removals is the postponement of some immigration cases until 2028 or 2029. 

Potential Positives Resulting from These Changes 

Supporters of the policy argue that bold action is needed to manage the backlog. The Department of Justice defends the relaxed qualifications by noting that many effective judges have entered their positions with minimal prior experience in immigration law. Proponents also believe that immigration judges have not met their mounting caseloads effectively, spurring the need for radical change. 

Concerns and Critiques 

This policy shift has been met with criticism from legal experts and former immigration judges. Critics are concerned that the temporary immigration judges are more susceptible to administrative influence in making their decisions. Permanent immigration judges undergo a rigorous training curriculum that includes a year of mentorship under an experienced immigration judge. There are concerns the six month contracts assigned to temporary immigration judges will not allow for the training necessary to ensure the incoming lawyers will be able to understand and avoid due process violations in adjudication. Finally, these removals often occur to judges with no prior notice and there are concerns this uncertainty of judges will have a negative impact of judicial efficiency and lead to further delays rather than the efficiency the administration desires. 

Conclusion 

The Trump administration’s move to authorize military lawyers as temporary immigration judges marks a radical shift in how immigration courts are staffed. While this strategy is framed as a necessary response to a national backlog crisis, it raises serious questions about due process, judicial qualifications, and executive overreach. Whether this change results in meaningful reform or lasting damage to the immigration court system remains to be seen. 

Sources

Bustillo, Trump administration fires more immigration judges, NPR (sept. 23, 2025), Trump administration fires more immigration judges : NPR.  

Executive Office For Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, New Cases, and Total Completions (Jul 31, 2025), 1 Pending New Receipts and Total Completions. 

McCulllough, Politifact (Dec. 6, 2024), Double number of immigration judges and staff: Joe Biden hired more immigration judges, but didn’t double their ranks | PolitiFact. 

National Security & Defense, Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorists Entry Into The United States (Mar. 6, 2017), Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States – The White House. 

Orozco, Trump Administration Appoints Hundreds of Unqualified Military Lawyers to Serve as Immigration Judges, American Immigration Council (sept. 5, 2025), Trump Administration Appoints Hundreds of Unqualified Military Lawyers to Serve as Immigration Judges – American Immigration Council. 

Taxin, Trump puts his stamp on nation’s immigration courts, AP News (Jul 23, 2019), Trump puts his stamp on nation’s immigration courts | AP News. 

 The Barack Obama Foundation, Ten Years of DACA (last visited Oct. 11, 2025) Ten years of DACA | The Obama Foundation. 

 VisaVerge, Every US President’s Immigration Stance: 1789-2025 (Sep. 23, 2025), Every US President’s Immigration Stance: 1789-2025 | VisaVerge. 

 Zevala, Former judges say mass firings could undermine immigration court system, Capradio (Sept. 30, 2025), Former judges say mass firings could undermine immigration court system. 

 8 C.F.R. §1001, 1003, 1208, and 1240.