Hold onto your gavels, folks—President Donald Trump’s administration has unleashed a seismic shakeup in federal immigration courts with a mass dismissal of judges that’s left the system reeling.

Since Trump’s return to office, a sweeping removal of nearly 100 out of roughly 700 immigration judges—coupled with additional retirements and resignations—has deepened backlogs and thrown courtrooms into disarray, especially in major hubs like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.

The firings began early in 2025, targeting a striking 98 judges, including high-profile names like Olivia Cassin in New York and Jennifer Peyton in Chicago, with many who had granted asylum at above-average rates or had backgrounds in immigrant defense.

Mass Firings Spark Courtroom Chaos

In New York alone, seven judges—all women—were terminated in a single day at 26 Federal Plaza during the first week of December, slashing the courthouse staff from 37 to 25.

Chicago’s court has been halved, now limping along with just 14 judges, while cities like Chelmsford, Massachusetts, and San Francisco report similar devastation amid a backlog of millions of pending cases.

The dismissal process is as cold as a winter wind: judges receive an email citing Attorney General Pam Bondi’s authority under Article II of the Constitution, and poof—their names vanish from Department of Justice records faster than you can say “due process.”

Judges Fight Back Amid Controversy

Many of these ousted judges aren’t going quietly, launching legal challenges like Tania Nemer from Ohio, who filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sex, national origin, and political affiliation as a dual U.S.-Lebanon citizen and former Democratic candidate.

Olivia Cassin, pushed out late last month in New York, has also started proceedings to contest her firing, echoing a growing chorus of frustration. She declared, “It’s about destroying a system where cases are carefully considered by people with knowledge of the subject matter. They’re firing everyone.” (Olivia Cassin, former New York immigration judge)

Let’s unpack that—while Cassin’s passion is clear, the idea of “destroying a system” might overstate the intent; Trump’s team argues they’re cleaning house after years of perceived leniency under the prior administration, though the collateral damage to court efficiency is hard to ignore.

Administration Defends Purge as Reform

The Department of Justice isn’t shy about its stance, with a spokesperson proclaiming, “After four years of the Biden Administration forcing Immigration Courts to implement a de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens, this Department of Justice is restoring integrity to our immigration system and encourages talented legal professionals to join in our mission to protect national security and public safety.” (DOJ spokesperson)

That’s a bold claim, but with courtrooms sitting empty—contrary to the “No Dark Courtrooms” policy of Trump’s first term—and backlogs swelling, one wonders if “integrity” is just a polite word for gridlock while they scramble to recruit so-called “deportation judges” with a 25% incentive.

Speaking of recruitment, the administration’s push to fill gaps with military lawyers and new hires hasn’t impressed everyone, especially when urban courts remain understaffed and cases pile up like unread emails.

Calls for Independence Grow Louder

Amid the upheaval, there’s a renewed push from judges and Democratic lawmakers like Reps. Dan Goldman of New York and Zoe Lofgren of California to make immigration courts independent from the executive branch, free from political whims.

Currently, these judges are at-will employees under the DOJ, not the judicial branch, meaning the Attorney General can overrule their decisions—a setup that critics argue invites meddling, especially when firings seem to target those with certain ruling patterns.

While an independent judiciary sounds noble, let’s be real: with a Republican-controlled Congress, this idea is about as likely to pass as a snowball surviving a microwave, though the debate highlights a genuine tension between efficiency, fairness, and executive control in a system already strained by detentions and limited legal pathways.