By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Several immigration judges with backgrounds in immigrant defense have been terminated by the Department of Justice, often without explanation, during their probationary period. These firings have occurred in the midst of ongoing immigration court proceedings and often target judges at the end of their two-year trial period. The firings have prompted concerns, and an analysis shows that judges with prior experience defending immigrants have been disproportionately affected. The DOJ maintains it does not target judges based on experience, while the ongoing terminations and subsequent hiring practices suggest a shift towards judges with backgrounds in enforcement.
Read the original article here
The DOJ has been firing judges with immigrant defense backgrounds, and it’s a situation that definitely raises eyebrows. It seems like a pattern is emerging, where judges with experience advocating for immigrants are being let go. The numbers cited, that 44% of those firings in a specific year were individuals with this background, suggest a trend that’s worth serious examination.
It is important to remember, these aren’t your typical, independent judges. These are immigration judges. They operate within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which falls under the purview of the Department of Justice. This is a critical distinction, as it fundamentally shapes their position and the environment in which they work.
These judges aren’t shielded by the same protections as Article III judges, the ones you typically picture in courtrooms. The executive branch, the same entity that houses the prosecutors, also oversees these judges. This creates a situation where the executive branch effectively sets the policies for both sides of the courtroom in immigration cases. It’s like having the referee also be on the same team as the prosecutor, which, as you can imagine, could create some serious issues.
This executive control, coupled with the ability to fire these judges, leads to a perception of bias. If a judge makes rulings that the executive branch doesn’t like, they could be vulnerable. This vulnerability undermines the impartiality that we expect from any judicial figure, regardless of the court. The way the system works invites potential for influence and raises questions about fairness.
One of the more frustrating aspects is how misleading the term “judge” is in this context. When the average person thinks of a judge, they envision someone impartial, who is not beholden to the same body that prosecutes cases. They assume this judge can’t be fired for their decisions. In the immigration system, this isn’t the reality. The word “judge” creates an illusion of impartiality, when the system itself may not fully reflect that.
This all points to a need for some serious introspection and potential reform. It appears like the existing system can lead to a perception of a biased or even kangaroo court. The executive branch’s broad powers within the immigration court system are a cause for concern.
There’s a strong argument to be made that administrative roles like these, where the government is involved and legal problems arise, should be handled more independently. This could mean bringing cases involving the government through the regular criminal courts.
One potential solution is to remove the power of the executive branch to fire these administrative law judges based on their rulings. Creating more distance between the judges and the prosecutors. It would be a significant step toward ensuring more fairness and impartiality within the immigration court system. That way, the “We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong” narrative would be less viable.
The fact that the article mentions that the fired judges were all women also is another factor. Whether this is an example of overt discrimination or just happenstance, it is a piece of data to consider.
Ultimately, the issue of the DOJ firing judges with immigrant defense backgrounds highlights the importance of judicial independence and fairness. It’s not just about the individuals affected but about the integrity of the entire system.