Trump Administration Fires 17 Immigration Court Judges across Ten States, Union Says
The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents immigration court judges as well as other professionals, said in a news release that 15 judges were fired 'without cause' on Friday and another two on Monday. The union said they were working in courts in 10 different states across the country — California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah and Virginia.
'It's outrageous and against the public interest that at the same time Congress has authorized 800 immigration judges, we are firing large numbers of immigration judges without cause,' said the union's President Matt Biggs. 'This is nonsensical. The answer is to stop firing and start hiring.'
Firings come with courts at the center of administration efforts
The firings come as the courts have been increasingly at the center of the Trump administration's hardline immigration enforcement efforts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arresting immigrants as they appear at court for proceedings.
A spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which is the part of the Justice Department that oversees the courts, said in an email that the office would not comment on the firings.
The large-scale arrests began in May and have unleashed fear among asylum-seekers and immigrants appearing in court. In what has become a familiar scene, a judge will grant a government lawyer's request to dismiss deportation proceedings against an immigrant. Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are waiting in the hallway to arrest the person and put them on a fast track to deportation as soon as he or she leaves the courtroom.
Immigration court judges are also dealing with a massive backlog of roughly 3.5 million cases that ballooned in recent years. Cases can take years to weave their way to a final determination, with judges and lawyers frequently scheduling final hearings on the merits of a case over a year out. Unlike criminal courts, the government isn't required to provide lawyers to everyone going through immigration courts; immigrants can hire their own lawyer but if they can't afford one they represent themselves — often using an interpreter to make their case.
Senator alleges one firing is punishment
Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois alleged that one of the judges fired was essentially being punished for talking to him during a visit the senator made a few weeks ago to the Chicago Immigration Court.
In a news release Tuesday, Durbin said the judge 'took time to show me the court and explain its functions.' He said after the visit, the judge received an email from the Justice Department telling her that all communications with congressional offices should be routed through headquarters and that immigration judges shouldn't be talking directly with members of Congress.
'Her abrupt termination is an abuse of power by the Administration to punish a non-political judge simply for doing her job,' said Durbin, who's the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Courts are getting a cash infusion
Under recently passed legislation that will use $170 billion to supercharge immigration enforcement, the courts are set to get an infusion of $3.3 billion. That will go toward raising the number of judges to 800 and hiring more staff to support them.
But the union said that since the Trump administration took office over 103 judges have either been fired or voluntarily left after taking what was dubbed the 'Fork in the Road' offers at the beginning of the administration. The union said that rather than speeding up the immigration court process, the Justice Department's firings would actually make the backlogs worse. The union said that it can take as long as a year to recruit, hire and train new immigration court judges.
There are currently about 600 judges, according to the union figures. Immigration courts fall under the Justice Department.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Columbia University Agrees to Pay More Than $220m in Deal with Trump to Restore Federal Funding
NEW YORK (AP) — Columbia University announced Wednesday it has reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay more than $220 million to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. Under the agreement, the Ivy League school will pay a $200 million settlement over three years, the university said. It will also pay $21 million to resolve alleged civil rights violations against Jewish employees that occurred following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, the White House said. 'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' acting University President Claire Shipman said. The school had been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support, including more than $400 million in grants canceled earlier this year. The administration pulled the funding because of what it described as the university's failure to squelch antisemitism on campus during the Israel-Hamas war. Columbia has since agreed to a series of demands laid out by the Republican administration, including overhauling the university's student disciplinary process and applying a contentious, federally endorsed definition of antisemitism not only to teaching but to a disciplinary committee that has been investigating students critical of Israel. Wednesday's agreement — which does not include an admission of wrongdoing — codifies those reforms while preserving the university's autonomy, Shipman said. 'Columbia's reforms are a roadmap,' Trump administration says Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the deal 'a seismic shift in our nation's fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.' 'Columbia's reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,' McMahon said in a statement. As part of the agreement, Columbia agreed to a series of changes previously announced in March, including reviewing its Middle East curriculum to make sure it was 'comprehensive and balanced' and appointing new faculty to its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies. It also promised to end programs 'that promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotes, diversity targets or similar efforts.' The university will also have to issue a report to a monitor assuring that its programs 'do not promote unlawful DEI goals.' In a post Wednesday night on his Truth Social platform, President Donald Trump said Columbia had 'committed to ending their ridiculous DEI policies, admitting students based ONLY on MERIT, and protecting the Civil Liberties of their students on campus.' He also warned, without being specific, 'Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming.' Crackdown follows Columbia protests The pact comes after months of uncertainty and fraught negotiations at the more than 270-year-old university. It was among the first targets of Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protests and on colleges that he asserts have allowed Jewish students be threatened and harassed. Columbia's own antisemitism task force found last summer that Jewish students had faced verbal abuse, ostracism and classroom humiliation during the spring 2024 demonstrations. Other Jewish students took part in the protests, however, and protest leaders maintain they aren't targeting Jews but rather criticizing the Israeli government and its war in Gaza. Columbia's leadership — a revolving door of three interim presidents in the last year — has declared that the campus climate needs to change. Columbia agrees to question international students Also in the settlement is an agreement to ask prospective international students 'questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States,' and establishes processes to make sure all students are committed to 'civil discourse.' In a move that would potentially make it easier for the Trump administration to deport students who participate in protests, Columbia promised to provide the government with information, upon request, of disciplinary actions involving student-visa holders resulting in expulsions or suspensions. Columbia on Tuesday announced it would suspend, expel or revoke degrees from more than 70 students who participated in a pro-Palestinian demonstration inside the main library in May and an encampment during alumni weekend last year. The pressure on Columbia began with a series of funding cuts. Then Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student who had been a visible figure in the protests, became the first person detained in the Trump administration's push to deport pro-Palestinian activists who aren't U.S. citizens. Next came searches of some university residences amid a federal Justice Department investigation into whether Columbia concealed 'illegal aliens' on campus. The interim president at the time responded that the university was committed to upholding the law. University oversight expands Columbia was an early test case for the Trump administration as it sought closer oversight of universities that the Republican president views as bastions of liberalism. Yet it soon was overshadowed by Harvard University, which became the first higher education institution to defy Trump's demands and fight back in court. The Trump administration has used federal research funding as its primary lever in its campaign to reshape higher education. More than $2 billion in total has also been frozen at Cornell, Northwestern, Brown and Princeton universities. Administration officials pulled $175 million from the University of Pennsylvania in March over a dispute around women's sports. They restored it when school officials agreed to update records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and change their policies. The administration also is looking beyond private universities. University of Virginia President James Ryan agreed to resign in June under pressure from a U.S. Justice Department investigation into diversity, equity and inclusion practices. A similar investigation was opened this month at George Mason University.
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Judge Rejects Trump Administration Effort to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Records in Florida
A judge on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from grand jury investigations of Jeffrey Epstein years ago in Florida, though a similar request for the work of a different grand jury is pending in New York. U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in West Palm Beach said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the extraordinary exceptions under federal law that could make them public. The Justice Department last week asked the judge to release records to quell a storm among supporters of President Donald Trump who believe there was a conspiracy to protect Epstein's clients, conceal videos of crimes being committed and other evidence. In 2008, Epstein cut a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida that allowed him to escape more severe federal charges and instead plead guilty to state charges of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche had asked judges in Florida and New York to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, saying 'transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.' Federal grand juries hear evidence in secret and then decide whether there is enough for an indictment. Experts say the transcripts likely would not reveal much because prosecutors typically are trying only to present enough material to get charges and don't introduce the entire investigation. Epstein, a wealthy financier, years later was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges, while Maxwell was charged with helping him abuse teenage girls. Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City about a month after he was arrested. Investigators concluded he killed himself. Maxwell later was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The case attracted attention because of Epstein and Maxwell's links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. It also led to some of the biggest conspiracy theories animating Trump's base. The furor over records has been stoked by the Justice Department. In February, far-right influencers were invited to the White House and provided with binders marked 'The Epstein Files: Phase 1' and 'Declassified.' The binders contained documents that had largely already been in the public domain. The department on July 7 acknowledged that Epstein did not have a list of clients. It also said no more files related to his case would be made public. A two-page memo that bore the logos of the FBI and Justice Department, but that was not signed by any individual, said the department determined that no 'further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.' Meanwhile, a House Oversight subcommittee voted Wednesday to subpoena the Justice Department for files. The full committee issued a subpoena for Maxwell to testify before committee officials in August. And Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., called on Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yomiuri Shimbun
2 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
White House Escalates Attack on Obama, Relitigating 2016 Grievances
The White House on Wednesday escalated its effort to portray former president Barack Obama and members of his administration as part of a vast 'treasonous conspiracy' to undermine President Donald Trump, sending its top intelligence official to the White House podium to assert that they should be investigated for criminal wrongdoing. 'This is not about Democrats or Republicans. This has to do with the integrity of our Democratic republic and American voters,' Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said during an unusual appearance in the press briefing room. The campaign to revisit the 2016 election and its aftermath responds to grievances the president has nursed for eight years over what he considers to be unfair treatment by the intelligence community – feelings of being wrongly targeted that inflamed his distrust of the government he has set out to remake. He has repeatedly focused on the issue in recent days, with Gabbard declassifying two batches of election-related investigative documents in less than a week. On Wednesday, she and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt batted away criticism that elevating what they described as fresh findings in the case was an effort to deflect attention from Trump's own political struggles. Trump is under steady attack, including by some of his allies, for his administration's handling of the release of Justice Department files concerning the late, disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Gabbard spent more than 13 minutes detailing what she claimed was a 'years-long coup' by Obama-era officials against Trump that laid the groundwork for nearly a decade's worth of efforts to undermine, impeach and prosecute him. Gabbard said she had referred recently declassified documents to the Justice Department and FBI for criminal investigation, including into Obama. On Wednesday afternoon, the Justice Department said it would be launching a 'strike force' to assess evidence to support the criminal referrals and determine the next legal steps, though any effort to prosecute Obama would face formidable legal hurdles. 'We will investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. Gabbard's appearance at the White House to denounce former senior government officials whom Trump considers political enemies appeared to be an unprecedented act for a serving senior intelligence official, who are supposed to remain apolitical. Gabbard pledged at her Senate confirmation hearing to check 'my own views at the door' and deliver intelligence without bias or political influence. Trump himself has not been shy about his desire for retribution. 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people,' he said during a lengthy diatribe against Obama on Tuesday, speaking in the Oval Office while the visiting president of the Philippines sat by and watched. A major Supreme Court ruling in 2024 granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecutions for acts committed while they are in office. Even if the Justice Department found that Obama committed any wrongdoing, as Gabbard alleges, courts could dismiss charges if they determined that his actions were committed while he was carrying out the responsibilities of being president. Trump hailed that high court decision when it was released because it made it harder for the Justice Department to prosecute him on charges that he tried to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Now it could, in turn, thwart his efforts to go after his predecessors. Other federal officials might be shielded in other ways. And, as with any investigation, federal prosecutors would need to present their case to a grand jury to determine if sufficient evidence exists to bring any charges. The gist of the White House attack is that Obama and top officials of his administration wrongly tried to connect Trump with Russian efforts to sway the 2016 election. It's unclear whether any of the allegations, even if they were proven, would amount to a violation of a criminal statute. Obama's office on Tuesday issued a rare statement admonishing Trump, calling the allegations 'bizarre' and 'ridiculous.' Earlier Wednesday, Gabbard declassified an eight-year-old intelligence report by congressional Republicans that sought to cast doubt on a key element of the probe of Russia's 2016 election interference, the latest step in a campaign by her, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Trump to portray the Russia investigation as a 'hoax.' The previously secret 2017 report by Republican staff on the House Intelligence Committee confirmed spy agencies' findings that Russian intelligence services, acting on President Vladimir Putin's orders, interfered in the 2016 contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton. But the report asserted that the spy agencies were wrong in determining that Putin developed a preference for Trump and aspired to help. The Republicans said that assessment was based on weak or questionable intelligence. Former Democratic officials described the 2017 report as a partisan document that does not accurately reflect U.S. intelligence officials' work to unravel Russia's election interference. The assessment by U.S. spy agencies that Putin hoped to see Trump elected has long been the most contentious aspect of their report on Moscow's actions in the 2016 election, which was released in January 2017. But it has been upheld by several investigations, including a years-long bipartisan probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the report of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mueller concluded that Russian government actors successfully hacked computers and obtained emails from people associated with Clinton's campaign and Democratic Party organizations to sow discord in the United States, hurt Clinton and help Trump. The 46-page report that Gabbard released Wednesday contains an investigation by Republican staff working for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California), who was then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. The panel was riven by partisan tensions at the time, and the probe ultimately concluded that the spy agencies' finding that Putin wanted Trump to win was based on intelligence reports that contained flawed information or were subject to multiple interpretations. Nunes currently works as CEO of Trump's social media company, Truth Social. 'These failures were serious enough to call into question judgments that allege Putin 'developed a clear preference for candidate Trump' and 'aspired to help his chances of victory' and that 'Russian leaders never entirely abandoned hope for a defeat of Secretary Clinton,'' the report says. After Obama in late 2016 called on U.S. intelligence agencies to deliver an assessment of Russia's actions in the just-concluded U.S. presidential contest, his CIA chief, John Brennan, ordered that 15 previously unpublished intelligence reports based on information from CIA agents be published internally. Three of those reports were flawed, but those three became the foundation of the conclusion that Putin aspired to help Trump win, the House Intelligence Committee report said, adding that some CIA officers questioned how solid they were. Brennan did not immediately respond to a request for comment relayed via an aide. The House intelligence report stated that the assessment that Putin favored Trump's election was based on 'one scant, unclear and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from a single' human source. The sentence fragment – 'whose victory Putin was counting on' – was the only classified information cited by the assessment for its conclusion, the report stated. The report cited a senior CIA operations officer saying of the fragment, 'We don't know what was meant by that' and 'five people read it five ways.' But Michael van Landingham, a former CIA Russia analyst and one of the assessment's lead authors, said the source was 'very reliable and well-regarded' and that analysts familiar with the source material believe it clearly indicated Putin wanted Trump to win – something a CIA assessment said was consistent with raw intelligence. Further, he noted, a recent CIA tradecraft review of the assessment found that the assessment authors' 'interpretation of [the clause's] meaning was most consistent with the raw intelligence.' Susan Miller, a retired CIA officer who led the compiling and writing of the January 2017 intelligence assessment, disputed the House report's findings on the underlying intelligence. 'We had all the good sourcing. We did exactly what should have been done,' she said. 'We had very, very exquisite access,' Miller said of the CIA's sources in Russia. 'There's no doubt,' she said, that Moscow tried to influence the election in Trump's favor. Trump praised Gabbard's work on the Russia investigation, a sharp contrast to his public rebukes of her last month over her statements that Iran's leaders had not actively sought to build a nuclear weapon. The top Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees denounced her release of the report. 'It's appropriate that this shoddy and partisan report was released by Director Gabbard on the day that House Republicans are quite literally fleeing Washington, DC for six weeks rather than releasing the Epstein files that Trump is so desperate to cover up,' said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Connecticut), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
