Politics July 16, 2026 04:44 PM

U.N. Experts Say Removal of Over 100 U.S. Immigration Judges Threatens Court Independence

Independent U.N. panel urges halt to what it calls mass, arbitrary firings as deportations increase

By Leila Farooq
Share
Twitter Reddit Facebook LinkedIn

A panel of independent experts convened by the United Nations Human Rights Council has criticized the U.S. administration's removal of more than 100 immigration judges, saying the actions undermine the independence of immigration courts and the broader justice system. The panel urged a stop to what it described as "the mass arbitrary removal" of judges and warned against further politicization of adjudication as the administration steps up arrests and deportations. The Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review said it evaluates judges on conduct and impartiality and will act if judges demonstrate systematic bias.

U.N. Experts Say Removal of Over 100 U.S. Immigration Judges Threatens Court Independence
Summarize with
ChatGPT Perplexity Claude Grok Gemini

Key Points

  • U.N. Human Rights Council-appointed experts say removing over 100 immigration judges undermines judicial independence and risks politicizing immigration courts.
  • The Justice Department's EOIR says it continuously evaluates immigration judges on conduct and impartiality and will act if there is systematic bias.
  • More than 100 judges out of about 700 have left their posts since President Trump returned to office in January 2025, reducing capacity as arrests and deportations increase; several former judges have sued for wrongful termination.

A United Nations Human Rights Council-appointed panel of independent experts on Thursday expressed serious concern that the removal of more than 100 immigration judges in the United States is eroding the independence of the immigration courts and the wider justice system.

Immigration judges, who are employees of the U.S. Justice Department, preside over deportation proceedings and hear requests from migrants seeking asylum and other protections from removal. In a public statement, the U.N. panel called on the administration to stop what it termed "the mass arbitrary removal" of immigration judges and to cease the increasing politicization of immigration adjudication.

An official at the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, responded by saying the agency maintains an ongoing evaluation of all immigration judges. That evaluation considers multiple factors, including judges' conduct and their impartiality. The official emphasized that "All judges have a legal, ethical, and professional obligation to be impartial and neutral in adjudicating cases. If a judge violates that obligation by demonstrating a systematic bias in favor of or against either party, EOIR is obligated to take action to preserve the integrity of its system."

The U.N. panel said the recent firings have raised questions that some judges may have been targeted because of perceived political affiliation, their professional background, or their adjudicative records. The experts warned that such targeting jeopardizes the courts' independence and warned of direct and significant consequences.

"These removals undermine the independence of the immigration courts and the larger justice system, and their consequences are immediate and severe," the panel said in its release, adding that it had communicated these concerns to U.S. authorities.

In its release, the panel also said it was troubled by what it described as a transformation of the immigration court system. It stated that the White House appeared to be shifting the courts "from a forum for independent, individualized adjudication into an instrument for implementing deportation objectives."

According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, more than 100 immigration judges out of roughly 700 have either been fired or pushed out since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025. The panel noted that these departures have reduced the number of judges available to handle an increase in cases as the administration increases arrests and deportations.

Several former immigration judges have filed lawsuits against the Justice Department alleging wrongful termination. The U.N. experts' statement, the EOIR response, the reported number of departures, the association's estimate of the judiciary's size, and the existence of litigation together frame the dispute over how changes in staffing are affecting adjudication capacity and perceptions of impartiality in immigration courts.

Risks

  • Reduced adjudicative capacity in immigration courts as departures cut the pool of judges, affecting the pace and handling of deportation and asylum cases - this may impact legal services and immigration enforcement sectors.
  • Perception or reality of politicized decision-making in immigration adjudication, which could undermine public trust in the justice system and increase litigation - affecting the judiciary and legal representation markets.
  • Ongoing litigation by former judges alleging wrongful termination, which could prolong uncertainty over staffing and procedures within the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

More from Politics

House Approves $1.15 Trillion Defense Authorization Amid Partisan Rift Over Iran and Israel Provisions Jul 22, 2026 Why New York’s Mayor Says He Cannot Arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Jul 22, 2026 Justice Department Seeks Detailed Records After New Jersey Voting Registration Glitch Jul 22, 2026 Trump Rallies in Georgia, Presses National Voting Changes as Republicans Warn of Turnout Risks Jul 22, 2026 Anthropic Pledges Additional $20 Million to Political Group Backing AI Regulation Jul 22, 2026