Increasingly, immigration courts have become hostile territory for immigrants rather than a hallmark of due process. The Trump administration opened up courts to federal agents looking to meet arrest quotas; set up mass “mega” hearings designed to make people miss their hearings and get ordered deported; fired more than 130 experienced judges, retaliating against those who did not align with White House policies and appointing replacement military judges with no training in immigration law; and issued nearly all precedential decisions against the interest of immigrants. In this climate, a fair day in immigration court is an exception, not the rule.
The Trump administration proposed a rule that would worsen this crisis. This rule proposes to impose unilateral fines only on immigrants, their counsel, or their expert witnesses based on a finding of contempt by the immigration court. Immigration court hearings feature immigrants on one side and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the other. And yet, only one side (predictably: immigrants and their defenders) would face penalty and fines, while DHS faces no accountability.
This rule is engineered to make immigration courts even less fair for immigrants and their advocates. Already, NIJC has seen increased hostility daily in immigration courts, with new judges deferring to DHS while attacking immigrants and their counsel. This imbalance is dangerous because courts only work if both sides are heard. If this rule became final, it would enable judges to double down on immigrants, imposing hefty fines to chill their attorneys and witnesses from presenting their case without retaliation.
That is why NIJC filed a comment to the Federal Register calling for this rule to be withdrawn immediately. Read NIJC’s Federal Register comment below.
Azadeh Erfani is the director of policy at NIJC.