California Loses More Than a Quarter of Its Immigration Judges in One Year

Since January, California’s immigration court system has seen an unprecedented loss of judges, raising concerns about access to justice for thousands of immigrants with unresolved cases.

According to data compiled by Mobile Pathways, a Berkeley-based research organization, at least 35 immigration judges have left their positions in California this year, reducing the ranks from 132 to 97 judges. To provide perspective, five years ago, California had approximately 140 immigration judges, indicating that while fluctuations have occurred, the recent drop is more significant than usual.

The San Francisco court has been especially affected, losing over half of its judges.

This trend in California mirrors a national pattern. Of the 735 immigration judges in the previous fiscal year, nearly 200 have left their positions since President Trump’s inauguration, according to the judges’ union. Federal budget cuts and hiring freezes initiated in 2017 have played a substantial role in this attrition, limiting the recruitment and retention of qualified judges. Additionally, policy shifts within the Department of Justice during this time have altered the operational framework, influencing judges’ decision-making across the country.

Ousted judges report a swift process: they receive an email, sometimes during a hearing, notifying them of termination under Article II of the Constitution. Their names are then promptly removed from the Justice Department’s website.

“The fundamental question is not whether a non-citizen wins or loses their case, but whether they received a hearing,” notes Emmett Soper, a former Justice Department attorney who became an immigration judge in Virginia in 2017. “Until now, I believed I was working in a system that, despite its imperfections, was fundamentally fair.”

Amber George, who was terminated from the San Francisco court in November, expresses concern about the long-term impact: “Our government institutions are losing their legitimacy. What can people whose lives hang in the balance hope for when the ground shifts beneath their feet at every moment?”

In response to these departures, the administration has recruited 36 new judges, including 25 military attorneys serving in temporary roles.

This summer, the Pentagon authorized up to 600 military lawyers to join the Justice Department after the department removed the prior experience requirement in immigration law.

Job postings in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other cities seek candidates to become “judges” and “restore integrity to the immigration court system.” The judges’ union described these postings as “insulting.”

November data shows a significant disparity: military judges ordered deportation in 78 percent of the 110 cases they handled, compared to 63 percent for immigration judges overall. This difference could be influenced by a variety of factors, such as the types of cases being handled, the availability of legal representation for those appearing before military judges, or the geographic regions where these judges are assigned. Exploring these potential variables is crucial to understanding whether there are underlying causes of this disparity.

“They are probably following directives, and military personnel excel at that,” says Bartlomiej Skorupa, co-founder of Mobile Pathways, who urges caution due to the limited number of cases reviewed.

Ingrid Eagly, a professor of immigration law at UCLA, identifies two main issues: “These judges are temporary, which may expose them to pressure to rule a certain way. Additionally, they lack experience in an extremely complex area of law.”

The operational impact is already evident. With a nationwide backlog exceeding 3 million cases, the loss of experienced judges is increasing delays. Litigants are now waiting on average up to two years for their cases to be heard, forcing many to miss numerous workdays and strain personal resources. The remaining staff must quickly take on complex cases reassigned without notice, compounding the stress on both officials and individuals waiting for resolution.

Jeremiah Johnson, among the five judges terminated in San Francisco, fears a deliberate strategy: “These methods allow people to be removed without seeing a judge, without the due process established by Congress. This is a dismantling of the judicial system.”

The broader context supports this analysis. Immigrant detentions have reached record levels, exceeding 65,000. Arrests in courthouses are causing some immigrants to abandon their claims out of fear. Requests for voluntary departure, which avoid formal deportation, have increased in recent months.

In Congress, Senators Adam Schiff and Juan Vargas have introduced bills to block the appointment of military attorneys as temporary judges and limit their service to 2 years.

“This administration’s willingness to fire experienced judges and replace them with temporary ‘deportation judges’ is fundamentally transforming our judicial system,” Schiff said.

These initiatives are unlikely to pass in a Republican-controlled Congress but signal Democratic opposition, especially in California.

The Justice Department did not respond to detailed questions, stating only that judges must be impartial and that the agency must address any systematic bias.

Several dismissed judges are contesting their terminations. Tania Nemer, a dual Lebanese-American citizen, has sued the Justice Department and Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleging unlawful termination based on her sex, ethnicity, and political affiliation. A Democratic candidate for a judicial position in Ohio in 2023, she claims her opponents have discriminatory motives.

Bondi responded at a Cabinet meeting in early December: “Yesterday, I was sued by an immigration judge we fired. She claims it’s because she’s a woman. Last time I checked, I was also a woman.”

Other former judges, including Johnson, have appealed to the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, challenging the lack of justification for their termination.

“My goal is to be reinstated,” Johnson states. “Our court was dynamic, a good place to work despite the pressures.”

The National Association of Immigration Judges expects another wave of retirements at the end of the month, further worsening the crisis in the immigration court system.

Sources: Los Angeles Times