The Trump administration is directing immigration judges to close asylum seekers’ cases swiftly to expedite deportation proceedings.
CNBC reports that an internal memo obtained by NBC News reveals a controversial directive issued to immigration judges, aimed at facilitating immediate arrests of undocumented immigrants.
In a new push to intensify deportations, the Trump administration has ordered immigration judges to close certain cases more rapidly—a tactical move enabling immigration agents to make immediate arrests once cases are concluded. This policy, outlined in a Justice Department memo dated May 30 and reviewed by NBC News, has sparked serious concerns among affected judges and migrant rights advocates.
According to the instructions, judges—who report to the executive branch rather than the independent judiciary—must now accept oral dismissal requests from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys and grant them promptly without proper case analysis of asylum seekers. “Oral decisions must be rendered during the same time slot as the hearing where testimony and arguments are presented,” the memo states. No additional documentation is required to validate these decisions.
Once a case is closed, the individual becomes subject to expedited removal proceedings, without the opportunity to present their asylum claim before a judge.
The document emphasizes that individuals targeted by this procedure are “subject to mandatory detention” and can be taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), operating under DHS authority.
The Justice Department has declined to comment on this directive.
A source close to the immigration judges’ union, speaking anonymously to NBC News, acknowledged that while this policy is legally sound, it has generated significant discomfort among the judiciary.
They believe this makes a mockery of the entire process and betrays the principles Trump claims to uphold. “Fair application of immigration laws means following equitable rules… and this isn’t that,” the source explained, noting that judges are only permitted to speak to media through their union.
Even more concerning, the memo appears to inaccurately rephrase a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The law states that judges may grant case dismissals when “circumstances have changed to such an extent that continuation of the case is no longer in the government’s interest.” However, the Justice Department’s memo deliberately omits the phrase “of the case,” which significantly alters the provision’s meaning.
Greg Chen, Senior Director of Government Relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), criticized this omission, viewing it as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law. “The omission of the words ‘of the case’ is intentional because DHS is trying to avoid having to justify each case individually,” he told NBC News. “The law requires them to provide specific reasons for each request, which they’re not doing. This email represents a written policy that contradicts the law.”
Jason Houser, former ICE Chief of Staff under the Biden administration, acknowledged that this tactic will indeed allow the agency to arrest more individuals. However, he questions its actual effectiveness in accelerating deportations due to limited detention center capacity. “This strategy targets migrants who have already been vetted, who were working and had legal status,” he stated. “Flooding the system with thousands of non-criminals wastes time and resources when federal forces should be focusing on national security threats.”
This surge in activity comes at a time when ICE detention centers are reaching critical overcrowding levels.
As of May 23, the agency was housing over 51,000 individuals, according to their own data, despite having funding for only 41,500. Former officials have cautioned that this overload cannot be sustained without exposing the agency to budgetary deficits and potential legal penalties for unacceptable detention conditions.
The Trump administration, consistent with its hardline immigration stance, appears to be intensifying procedures while reducing procedural safeguards—a development that multiple experts warn could undermine the protection of fundamental rights for migrants on American soil.
