What America Loses When We Fire Immigration Judges without Cause
By Mimi Tsankov, Former President, National Association of Immigration Judges
I spent nearly two decades as an immigration judge, serving on the bench in New York, Los Angeles, Colorado, and on details to Laredo, Texas and Tacoma, Washington. I also served as president of the National Association of Immigration Judges for four years. I considered that work the honor of a lifetime. Over the past year, however, I have watched as more than 200 of my former colleagues have been fired, forced out, or pushed to resign.
This leadership approach is fundamentally changing the court system. Twelve immigration courts have lost more than half their judges. Two courts now have no judges at all. The San Francisco courthouse, once one of the busiest in the country, went from 21 judges to two before closing entirely, leaving approximately 120,000 cases pending in legal limbo. At the same time, federal habeas petitions in immigration detention cases reportedly rose from roughly 200 in 2024 to more than 9,000 in January 2026.
These numbers tell a story of a court system under extraordinary strain and raise important questions about whether it can continue to fulfill its most basic mission: providing fair and impartial hearings under the law.
During my years on the bench, immigration judges were repeatedly assured that judicial independence remained a central principle of the court system. Yet many judges simultaneously experienced growing pressure from ballooning dockets, increasingly demanding performance expectations, and directives emphasizing speed and efficiency. Over time, the gap between those assurances and the realities many judges faced became increasingly difficult to ignore.
Then came the firings. Many of the judges who lost their positions received no meaningful explanation. No finding of misconduct. No determination that they had failed to perform their duties. No clear justification beyond broad references to executive authority under Article II of the Constitution.
For someone who spent a career respecting the rule of law and the integrity of public institutions, that is deeply troubling. Judges are expected to explain their decisions. Every ruling must be supported by facts, law and reasoned analysis. Yet experienced judges who devoted years of service to the federal government were removed without receiving the same basic explanation they routinely provided to others.
The manner of these removals raises broader concerns about public confidence in the system itself. How can immigrants have faith in the fairness of their proceedings when judges are removed without transparency or accountability? Judicial independence cannot be maintained through statements and memoranda alone. It depends on whether judges can decide cases based on the law and facts without fear that their careers will be affected.
The consequences extend well beyond the judges who have left the bench. Judges on non-detained dockets are reportedly being scheduled for up to 100 master calendar hearings in a single day, in addition to individual hearings that require careful review of evidence, testimony and legal arguments. The workload being placed on many judges today would challenge even the most experienced jurists.
At the same time, newer judges enter the system under significant pressure. Many have relocated their families, left private practice and committed themselves to public service. They are stepping into a system where workloads are heavy, expectations are high and the institutional environment is in flux. That reality inevitably affects how the courts are perceived by those who appear before them.
That concern extends beyond the individuals involved. Courts depend on public trust. If litigants begin to believe that judges face pressure to reach preferred outcomes rather than independent conclusions based on the law and the facts, confidence in the fairness of the system inevitably suffers.
Immigration law is extraordinarily complex. Relief is not always warranted, but neither is removal. Every case requires careful analysis of evidence, credibility and legal standards. The legitimacy of the system depends upon judges having the independence to make those determinations without fear or favor.
At its core, this debate is about due process. The phrase can sound abstract, but in a courtroom due process often comes down to practical decisions that affect real people. Should someone be given additional time to secure legal representation or obtain evidence necessary to support a claim for relief? Should a hearing proceed when fairness requires delay?
Those decisions require judgment, discretion and independence. They cannot be reduced to quotas, deadlines, or administrative efficiency.
The immigration court system is under tremendous strain, but this is not a moment to abandon it. America still needs immigration judges. We need talented, experienced and ethical people willing to take on one of the most difficult responsibilities in public service. We need judges who understand the pressures of the job and remain committed to providing full and fair hearings despite those pressures.
Judges are not accustomed to drawing attention to themselves. We are trained to let our decisions speak for themselves and to preserve public confidence in the courts by remaining above political debates. But there are moments when silence carries its own consequences.
That belief has led many members of the legal community, myself included, to participate in efforts such as Speak Up for Justice, a nonpartisan initiative dedicated to defending judicial independence and the rule of law. These conversations matter because the public cannot protect institutions it does not understand.
No judge can solve every problem within a system. But every judge can approach each case with fairness, impartiality and fidelity to the law, and ensure that every person who appears before them receives the hearing the law promises. That is the immigration court system worth fighting for.