The United States Immigration Courts are very much in the news as the current federal administration makes immigration issues a major priority. As the adjudicator of the status of immigrants, Immigration Courts play a very important role in applying the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, the Immigration Court system has a long history of being under funded and staffed, resulting in problems like long delays in adjudicating the current 3.7 million pending cases whose average time to adjudication is five years. And the problem is growing, with the number of pending cases almost tripling in the last five years; it is estimated that it would take twenty years to clear pending cases at the current annual rate of dispositions.[i]
One frequently misunderstood aspect of the Immigration Courts is the fact that they are not part of the U.S. federal court system established under Article III of the Constitution.[ii] The Immigration Courts are instead an agency of the Department of Justice in the executive branch under the supervision and control of the U.S. Attorney General. “The primary mission of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings.”[iii] Thus, immigration case hearings, including most appeals, are held before administrative law judges (some appeals can go to the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal). The confusion about the status of the Immigration Courts not being part of the judicial branch was brought home to me recently when a well-educated family member was surprised when told about this fact. I believe this misapprehension is unfortunately very common across the country. Perhaps these “courts” should be renamed immigration tribunals while their “judges” are renamed hearing officers in order to help eliminate the confusion?
Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the adjudicative system it operates needs serious reform. There have been multiple attempts to do this in recent years, with no success. Let’s hope that this is rectified without delay to ensure that the U.S. immigration laws are indeed fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly applied. A good start would be to apply the best practices of the courts in the federal and state courts that have shown that it is possible to achieve excellent performance in upholding the Rule of Law.
[i] U.S. Immigration Courts See a Significant and Growing Backlog | U.S. GAO ; Immigration Courts Backlog Continues in 2024 ; Immigration courts miss a crucial metric for tracking immigrants ; Mass exodus of immigration officials could delay millions of deportations – ABC News ; Immigration courts clogged for years as Trump vows deportations – NBC4 Washington
[ii] The Article III courts include the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, the U.S. District Courts, and the Bankruptcy Courts, among others.
[iii] Executive Office for Immigration Review | About the Office
Court Leader 
One of the basic tenets of the federal courts, which sets them apart from the immigration courts, is that the federal courts are supposed to be immune from political pressure. Clearly, they are subject to political pressure. Is the assumption of an independent court system even valid anymore? Do we need to rethink everything we thought we knew about our courts?
LikeLike
Courts at all levels are experiencing increased outside pressure, including partisan political activity. The federal courts have always experienced this, but the recent past shows that political influences may very well be having an impact. The challenge is how do we confront and minimize such in all courts to ensure the purposes and responsibilities of courts to uphold the Rule of Law are fulfilled.
LikeLike