The second coming of Donald J. Trump was expected to impact immigration. People, however, did not know the extent of this impact. While Trump's second tenure in office has shaken literally the entire federal government, this article addresses the impact it has had and continues to have on immigration courts and its judges. More than 100 immigration judges have been fired by the Trump administration since January of 2025. While the media does report on these firings and potential policy behind these firings, hardly any attention is given to the question that why these immigration judges can be fired at will? Weren't judges supposed to have life appointments? To explore these questions, as always, let's start with the text of the Constitution.
Before we can examine the immigration court judgeships, we must start with federal judges. Article III of the Constitution vests the entire judicial power “in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 1 of Article III further provides for tenure of federal judges. Supreme Court judges and inferior Court judges shall hold their office during good behavior. The language “during good behaviour” has been interpreted to mean lifetime appointment. That is, federal judges are not required to retire and they cannot be fired. Federal judges cannot be fired even for bad behaviour. The actual process to remove a federal judge is via impeachment and conviction, that is, the House of Representatives must impeach a federal judge and the Senate must convict after impeachment and that is the only way to remove a federal judge.
If judges have such strong job security, how are immigration judges being fired without being impeached and convicted unless immigration judges are not federal judges?
If immigration judges are not federal judges under Article III, then does that mean that immigration Courts are not also Article III courts? After-all, an Article III court cannot have a judge who can be fired at will since the judge will have a life appointment. Immigration Courts are actually not courts. They are an office within the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”). EOIR has about 73 Immigration Courts. Each immigration Court is staffed with several immigration judges. These judges are not federal judges since they are not Article III judges.
Immigration judges are appointed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10 (a). Most immigration judges are attorneys who are appointed by the Attorney General as administrative judges within the EOIR system. Thus, immigration judges are administrative officers and they are not federal judges. Recall that Article III protects federal judges with life appointment tenure. Since immigration judges are not appointed under Article III or pursuant to Article III, they are not protected by Article III's life appointment protection afforded to federal judges.
Impact of firings of Immigration Judges
The firing of immigration judges at will is accomplishing several policy objectives for the Trump administration. But here are two main objectives, 1) it creates a chilling effect, warning other immigration judges that noncompliance could cost them their positions.; and 2) it provides the opportunity for Attorney General Pam Bondi to install people as judges who are party loyalists willing to violate the laws and the Constitution.
One recent example is that on Friday, November 21, 2025, five immigration judges were fired from the San Francisco immigration Court. All five of them had strong pass ratings for immigration relief, that is, they were more likely to grant relief to immigrants. Around the same time, the DOJ posted job openings for San Francisco immigration Court and described the position as “deportation judge.” Undoubtedly, these new “deportation judges” will undermine the rule of law and deny immigrants their due process in Court in an effort to preserve their position.
Solution Going Forward: Independent EOIR and Article III Immigration Judges
The fundamental basic principle of any judicial tribunal is the preservation of law. In America, there is another important principle that must prevail in all legal proceedings–Due Process of Law. At present, EOIR as an agency dependent on the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is severely under attack by its parent host, that is, the DOJ. The DOJ has made clear that it has no interest in preserving the rule of law and it is not interested in affording due process of law to immigrants.
First, the EOIR must become an independent entity. EOIR could be made its own department like the DOJ or Department of Education or Department of the Treasury or the Department of Homeland Security. This reorganization will ensure that EOIR, as its own department, will become free from the control of the DOJ. This will insulate immigration judges from DOJ firings. This, however, does not necessarily resolve the problem of at-will firings of the immigration judges. It will barely move the power to fire at will from DOJ over to EOIR as its own department. Thus, this reorganization will require that statutory laws be passed to ensure that immigration judges are afforded Article III protections and they are appointed for life.
The second option will require substantial legwork. It will require the EOIR to be dismantled all together and transfer the immigration hearings and matters over to regular federal courts established under Article III.
Because this option will transfer over an enormous amount of new caseload to federal courts, it will require that more federal judges be appointed to the bench. These new judges can tackle not only the immigration workload but also other cases being heard before the federal courts. This will require more appointments to the bench, more Senate hearings, and more political currency must be used to appoint new federal judges. This option apart from requiring substantial legwork might also be more politicized and costly both in political costs and monetary costs.
The first option is a bit more practical and it also saves the Attorney General the embarrassment of having to manage subordinates who are insulated from firings for life while her own position is only temporary. An independent EOIR department with Article III protection of immigration judges will ensure that the rule of law is preserved and that due process of law is being afforded to those who need it the most.
