NAIJ/IFPTE Judicial Council 2 President Shares Union's Perspective On Mass Firings, "Whipsaw by Politics," and Structural Issues of Immigration Court

Speaking in her capacity as President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), IFPTE Judicial Council 2, Judge Holly D’Andrea talked to The New York Times’ The Daily podcast to discuss the political, structural, and resource pressures that the immigration judges and the the immigration court faces.

While the ongoing firing of immigration judges under the second Trump Administration — now numbering over 115 judges — has creates an atmosphere where the possibility of being “fired at any time hanging over the judges,” President D’Andrea noted that the political prioritization of immigration adjudication is a longstanding issue that has stretched across several administrations.

Immigration judges are also being required to hear an unrealistic number of cases each day, which results in NAIJ members working 14 hour days with little time for write decisions and undermines the ability to the judges to issue decisions. President D’Andrea noted, “you’re asking a judge to rush through a bunch of asylum cases without fully hearing the entire testimony or skirting through the evidence quickly, it’s very difficult.”

On top of firing trained immigration judges and overburdening the remaining judge corps with work speedups, the agency that runs the immigration courts, the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), has started hiring judges that do not have an immigration background. Lowering hiring standards as part of an administration effort to increase the rate of asylum denials indicates a structural flaw in the court. President D’Andrea explains, “when you take the immigration court out from underneath the executive influence, you have long-term stability.”

Listen to or read the interview with NAIJ President Holly D’Andrea here.