By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has authorized the deployment of up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department to serve as temporary immigration judges, prompted by the Trump administration’s increased focus on immigration enforcement and a substantial backlog of approximately 3.5 million cases. The military will begin sending groups of 150 attorneys, both military and civilian, “as soon as practicable.” The move aims to address the strain on immigration courts, compounded by the departure of numerous immigration judges, with the Pentagon’s executive secretary sending the request to his DOJ counterpart. Critics, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, express concerns regarding the lack of specialized immigration law expertise among the temporary judges and its potential impact on due process, questioning the decision to send in lawyers from the military rather than hiring additional judges.
Read the original article here
Pentagon authorizes up to six hundred military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges. This is definitely a headline that makes you pause and think. The idea of the military stepping in to fill roles usually handled by civilian courts is something that immediately raises eyebrows, and for good reason. It’s a move that touches on some pretty fundamental questions about the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the very nature of justice itself.
The immediate context here is the immense backlog in immigration courts, something that’s been a growing concern for a while. The administration, in this case, has chosen to address this by potentially deploying up to 600 military lawyers as temporary immigration judges. While the intention might be to alleviate the strain on the system and expedite the processing of cases, the implications are far more complex.
One of the biggest concerns is the potential for the executive branch to exert undue influence over the courts. Military lawyers, after all, are under the command of the Pentagon and, ultimately, the President. This raises serious questions about whether these “temporary judges” can maintain the impartiality and objectivity required to fairly adjudicate immigration cases. The judiciary, at its core, is supposed to be independent, a crucial check on executive power. This move seems to blur that line, potentially turning the courts into tools of political will rather than arbiters of justice.
The recent history of the immigration court system adds another layer of complexity. Reports indicate that there has been a turnover in immigration judges. In January 2025, the administration started by firing or allowing the resignation of a large number of judges. This sort of shift in personnel, coupled with the introduction of military lawyers, gives the impression of a system undergoing a fundamental transformation.
It’s worth asking, what are these military lawyers supposed to be doing? Their primary responsibility isn’t immigration law, and there’s a certain irony in potentially pulling them from their established roles, such as providing legal assistance to military personnel, and assigning them to immigration cases. This raises questions about the fairness of the process and the expertise of the individuals hearing these complex cases. Can they be truly independent in their decision-making, or will their rulings be influenced by the administration’s priorities?
Of course, proponents might argue that this is a practical solution to a pressing problem. They might point to the need to process asylum claims and clear the backlog. However, even if that’s the primary goal, the method still warrants serious consideration. There are alternative ways to deal with the backlog, such as hiring more civilian judges, streamlining the process, and providing adequate resources to the courts. But instead, the choice was made to draw upon military resources.
Looking at the bigger picture, this move could set a dangerous precedent. If the executive branch can bypass traditional checks and balances in the area of immigration, what’s to stop it from doing the same in other areas? We’ve already seen signals of this in administrative law, where there are moves to allow the president to fire officials and judges without cause, which could potentially undermine the independence of other legal processes.
This isn’t just about immigration; it’s about the balance of power within our government. A system where courts are seen as extensions of the executive branch erodes the very foundations of our democracy. We need independent, impartial judicial bodies to ensure that justice is served fairly, regardless of political winds. It’s a dangerous thing when the military is being used for law enforcement.
The long-term consequences of this decision remain to be seen, but it is a decision that deserves careful scrutiny and debate. It should be discussed, challenged, and the reasons behind it carefully analyzed by the public. The implications go far beyond immigration policy. It impacts our system of government itself. The decisions made in immigration courts affect the lives of countless individuals. Ensuring the integrity of that system is paramount.