A sudden decision by the Trump administration has sent shockwaves through the immigration court system, triggering confusion, delays, and fierce backlash from former judges—while supporters say it marks a long-overdue effort to restore order and accountability.
On November 21, immigration judge Jeremiah Johnson was handling routine cases in San Francisco when he learned that two fellow judges had been abruptly dismissed. Minutes later, he discovered his own fate.
After returning to his chambers, Johnson opened his government email and saw a message from the Department of Justice containing a single alarming word: termination. Before he could even print the letter, his system access was shut down.
Just like that, Johnson’s eight-year tenure on the bench—much of it during President Donald Trump’s first term—was over. Hundreds of pending immigration cases under his authority were immediately put on hold.
Immigration Courts Thrown Into Disarray
Johnson was not the only judge affected.
That same day in New York City, immigration judge Olivia Cassin received a similar notice informing her that Attorney General Pam Bondi had removed her from her position, effective immediately.
Cassin, appointed during the Obama years, said the judges who were dismissed were seasoned professionals with deep knowledge of immigration law.
According to both judges, the sudden removals left thousands of cases in limbo at a time when the immigration court backlog has ballooned to an estimated 3.6 million unresolved cases nationwide.
For many Americans watching from the sidelines, the chaos raised a fundamental question: How can the system function if judges are removed faster than cases are resolved?
DOJ Defends Trump Administration’s Move
The Department of Justice pushed back against claims of political retaliation, stating that immigration judges are regularly reviewed and expected to uphold impartiality.
A DOJ spokesperson said the Trump administration is reversing what it views as years of weak enforcement under the Biden administration—policies that critics say encouraged illegal immigration and overwhelmed the court system.
According to the DOJ, the goal is simple: restore the rule of law, protect public safety, and reassert national sovereignty.
Supporters argue that after years of what they describe as “open-border chaos,” decisive action was inevitable.
‘Deportation Judges’ Spark National Debate
As judges were being dismissed, the administration launched a nationwide hiring push—openly advertising for what it labeled “deportation judges.”
That wording quickly became a flashpoint.
Cassin said she noticed the job postings the very morning she was fired, calling the timing “impossible to ignore.” The ads appeared on social media and official government channels, including postings linked to both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.
Critics argue the administration is replacing experienced judges with newcomers focused on speed rather than nuance. Supporters counter that the system desperately needs judges willing to enforce immigration law as written, not rewrite it from the bench.
So far, the administration has not disclosed how many new judges have been hired or how quickly they will be trained.
Backlogs Stretch Years Into the Future
Before his dismissal, Johnson said he was already inheriting cases from other judges who had been let go. Some hearings were being scheduled as far out as 2029.
With enforcement actions increasing and fewer judges on the bench, delays have only worsened.
“If you don’t have judges, you don’t have functioning courts,” Johnson said. “People end up stuck in legal limbo.”
From a conservative viewpoint, critics of the old system say this is exactly why reform is necessary: endless delays, inconsistent rulings, and little accountability.
Heightened Security and Rising Tensions
Under President Trump’s second term, immigration courts have seen increased federal law enforcement presence. ICE agents are now a common sight in court buildings, particularly in major cities like New York.
There have been multiple reports of arrests taking place immediately after court hearings or during routine visits to government offices for immigration interviews.
Protests have erupted inside and outside federal buildings, adding to the tension.
Supporters of stricter enforcement say visible consequences are necessary to deter illegal entry and discourage abuse of the asylum system.
Difficult Choices, Human Consequences
Cassin previously oversaw cases involving unaccompanied minors—children who entered the U.S. without parents. She said many stopped appearing in court after hearing stories of classmates being detained or deported.
Under federal law, judges must issue deportation orders when individuals fail to appear—regardless of circumstances.
Johnson recalled one case involving a woman who likely would have won her claim but asked to be deported anyway because she could not endure prolonged detention.
To many Americans, these stories highlight a system that became unsustainable—one that placed emotional strain on migrants, judges, and taxpayers alike.
A Defining Moment for Immigration Policy
The Trump administration’s sweeping changes have ignited outrage from progressive activists and former officials, while supporters argue the overhaul was long overdue.
Immigration courts have become the frontline in a broader national debate over border security, public safety, and the rule of law.
As President Trump continues to press forward with aggressive enforcement and faster removals, one thing is certain: the immigration system—and the country—are entering a decisive new chapter.