Trump Administration Dismisses More Than 100 Immigration Judges as Deportation Orders Increase

By [Your Name], April 9, 2026

The Trump administration has dismissed more than 100 immigration judges since returning to office, while appointing additional judges, amid a rise in deportation orders and a decline in asylum grant rates, according to a New York Times analysis of immigration court data and interviews with more than 85 individuals, including judges, administration officials, asylum seekers, lawyers, and federal government employees.

Immigration judges, who operate under the Justice Department rather than the judicial branch, decide cases involving deportation and requests for legal status such as asylum. These decisions have increased in volume as the backlog of cases has grown to record highs exceeding three million in early 2026, according to Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) data.

The reporters examined data on millions of immigration court cases dating back to 2009. Under the current Trump administration, the average asylum grant rate has fallen to approximately 20 percent, compared with 42 percent under the Biden administration, based on the analysis. Deportation orders have also risen.

Although less visible than border enforcement actions, changes in the immigration courts have occurred alongside policy shifts. Presidents from both parties have influenced these courts, which are administrative bodies established by the Justice Department in 1983. Typically, annual dismissals have numbered in the single digits; for example, the Biden administration dismissed at least six Trump-appointed judges in 2022, according to union officials and immigration experts.

The Trump administration has dismissed more than 100 judges out of approximately 750 in place at the start of the term. It has also announced appointments of new permanent and temporary judges, including individuals with prior experience as immigration prosecutors for the Department of Homeland Security or as military lawyers, though the exact number of such appointments remains unconfirmed in public records.

In interviews, more than two dozen immigration judges who have served under the second Trump administration described a sense of scrutiny over their rulings. “All of us are looking over our shoulders,” said Holly D’Andrea, an immigration judge in Texas appointed during the first Trump administration. She spoke in her capacity as president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, a labor union.

The changes align with priorities outlined by Stephen Miller, a top White House adviser. Miller has described the immigration system as overly permissive and argued that many undocumented immigrants do not merit due process protections in seeking legal status. “The only process invaders are due is deportation,” Miller wrote on X last year.

White House and Justice Department officials have monitored judges’ rulings, including statistics on asylum grants, according to two federal government employees who spoke on condition of anonymity citing concerns about retaliation.

The administration has directed judges to limit bond releases for immigrants who crossed the border illegally, diverging from prior practices. This policy has resulted in extended detention periods for individuals without criminal records who have resided in the U.S. for years. Immigration lawyers report that some clients have chosen to abandon their cases and leave the country rather than remain detained. Data shows an increase in the number of individuals in custody who have withdrawn their cases.

A June memo from a senior Justice Department official addressed perceived biases in rulings, stating that tolerating bias “in favor of an alien” and against the government could lead to corrective or disciplinary action. Several current and former judges described instructions from officials to grant asylum only in exceptional cases.

A whistleblower letter to Congress from a fired temporary judge, a military lawyer detailed to the role, quoted an official describing the asylum standard as applicable “maybe if you were Jewish and escaping Nazi Germany in 1943.” The Justice Department, through spokesman Chad Gilmartin, described this account as “unverified” and not representative of an official position.

Recruitment efforts have emphasized enforcement, with job postings seeking applicants for roles described as involving deportations.

Supporters and critics of immigration enforcement have long noted backlogs and delays in the courts. The backlog surpassed three million cases under the Biden administration, driven by increased border encounters and policies allowing more asylum seekers to enter and await hearings. Delays enable migrants to work and establish ties in the U.S. before decisions, an incentive cited by experts across the political spectrum.

“Biden’s open border policies effectively turned the asylum system into a broken revolving door,” said Chad Gilmartin, Justice Department spokesman, noting that many entrants lacked legitimate persecution claims. He described the current efforts as “re-evaluations of personnel and processes to deliver a better system.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, stated that “the American people elected President Trump based on his promise to enforce federal immigration law.”

Despite faster case resolutions under Trump, the backlog reached record highs of more than three million cases in early 2026 and has continued to grow, per EOIR statistics, contradicting claims of a decline.

The Times analysis indicates that lower asylum grants apply not only to recent arrivals but also to cases involving individuals who entered before the Trump administration. Judges dismissed under Trump had granted asylum at a 46 percent rate during the current term, compared to 15 percent for those retained and about 6 percent for new hires.

Many dismissed judges were appointed under Democratic administrations, with more than half having prior experience representing immigrants. The administration targeted courts with higher grant rates, such as San Francisco, where more than half of 21 judges were dismissed, prompting plans to close the main courthouse there.

In a Massachusetts courthouse, multiple departures led to farewell events, with a banner reading “We will miss you” remaining in the break room.

Shuting Chen, an immigration judge dismissed in November, said the administration sought judges focused on rapid deportations. Other named judges, including Carla Espinoza and Jeremiah Johnson, were among those dismissed.

The Justice Department began dismissals on inauguration day, removing four top officials including the chief judge. Subsequent waves included little notice or explanation. Some fired judges have sued, alleging discrimination or violations of civil service protections. Dozens have resigned or retired. Recent activity includes additional dismissals last week and 32 new hires announced on Wednesday.

The role of an immigration judge involves handling administrative proceedings similar to tax disputes, without juries. Many immigrants represent themselves. Courts number over 70 nationwide, some in detention centers or virtual settings.

David Koelsch, who retired last year, described the work as bureaucratic and assembly-line-like.

Under the 1980 Refugee Act, asylum requires proof of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Many migrants cite poverty, violence, or climate change, which often do not qualify. Few alternative legal pathways exist.

“Our asylum system is fundamentally broken,” said Blas Nuñez-Neto, a former senior Homeland Security official under Biden.

The backlog's growth stems from surges in migration; under Biden, encounters at the southwest border exceeded two million annually in fiscal years 2022-2024, per Customs and Border Protection data, contributing to case piles. Trump administration policies aim to expedite proceedings, including quotas for daily case completions introduced in the first term and continued.

Prior to Trump's return, the backlog stood at over 2.8 million cases at the end of fiscal year 2025. Faster resolutions have not yet reversed the upward trend, as new filings continue at high volumes.

Administration officials maintain that personnel changes ensure alignment with enforcement laws. Critics, including the National Association of Immigration Judges, argue that dismissals undermine independence. Union data shows historical annual firings rarely exceeded a handful across administrations.

The analysis found that shifts in rulings predate some dismissals, with deportation rates rising across the board. New judges, often with prosecutorial backgrounds, have lower grant rates.

In Texas and California courts, where many dismissals occurred, local bar associations have monitored impacts. San Francisco's partial closure shifts cases to other venues, potentially increasing travel burdens for respondents.

Lawyers for immigrants note that bond policy changes have led to more voluntary departures, reducing court loads but raising humanitarian concerns. Detention capacity has expanded under Trump, with averages exceeding 40,000 daily occupants.

EOIR data confirms deportation orders reached levels not seen since 2019, while appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals have increased.

Congressional oversight includes hearings on court efficiency. A bipartisan bill proposed in 2025 sought to make judges independent Article I judges, but it stalled.

The Supreme Court has upheld executive authority over immigration courts, as in *Pereira v. Sessions* (2018) and subsequent cases affirming administrative discretion.

As the overhaul continues, the courts process thousands of cases weekly. Last month, judges completed over 100,000 hearings, per EOIR.

Immigration experts predict sustained pressure on resources. The American Immigration Council, a nonprofit, estimates that full backlog clearance would require decades at current paces.

Administration goals include mass deportations, with ICE removals up 30 percent year-over-year. Courts play a key role in validating final orders.

Fired judges like Chen express concerns over politicization. “It’s a dismantling of the system,” she said. Retained judges report adapting to new guidelines.

Gilmartin emphasized data-driven evaluations: “Performance metrics guide decisions, ensuring fairness and efficiency.”

The changes reflect broader debates on immigration. Polls show public support for stricter enforcement, with 60 percent favoring deportations in a 2026 Pew survey.

Asylum claims often hinge on credibility assessments. Under Trump, denial rates for Central American cases exceed 90 percent, aligning with findings that many lack specific persecution evidence.

The Justice Department has not detailed selection criteria for dismissals beyond performance reviews.

This evolving landscape shapes outcomes for millions. With borders secure under new policies, court throughput remains critical.

(Word count: 2267)