Reshaping the Landscape of Immigration Court

EOIR Appoints 11 New Immigration Judges Amid Ongoing Removals

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has recently appointed 11 new immigration judges and 25 temporary immigration judges across various immigration courts in the United States.

These additions come against a backdrop of more than 100 immigration judges that have been dismissed, reassigned or forced to retire since the beginning of 2025 by the Trump administration.

Recent Appointments & Backgrounds of Appointees

The eleven newly appointed judges will serve in immigration courts located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

While the judges come from a variety of legal and professional backgrounds, common threads emerge in their careers. Seven of the eleven  have extensive experience as attorneys with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, particularly within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The vast majority have some sort of prosecutorial background.

Temporary Judges

The 25 temporary immigration judges will serve in courts with higher case volumes or staffing needs. This temporary designation allows EOIR to adjust staffing levels based on caseload demands without making permanent appointments. Their professional backgrounds are similar to those of permanent judges, including prior military service, federal or state government roles, and experience as administrative or trial judges. Interestingly, of the temporary judges, only one has previously worked for the Department of Homeland Security.

Impact on Immigration Courts

The addition of these judges does not yet compensate for the disruption of judges by this administration and comes amid a record-high backlog of an estimated 3+ million immigration cases. The reduction in judicial personnel has raised concerns about the ability of immigration courts to manage the growing caseload effectively. Critics argue that the removals and policy shifts undermine judicial independence and the integrity of the immigration adjudication process.

Conclusion

The recent appointments of new and temporary immigration judges reflect the administration’s efforts to address staffing needs in immigration courts. Many of the appointees have prior experience with DHS and ICE, which may influence how cases are handled. The addition of these judges should be viewed in light of the removal of over 100 judges in the preceding months of 2025. As the backlog continues to grow, balancing new appointments with experienced judges remains a central challenge for the EOIR.