Trump Administration Removes Dozens of Immigration Judges in Sweeping Judicial Overhaul

The Trump administration has launched a far-reaching reorganization of the nation’s immigration court system, quietly dismissing dozens of judges as part of a larger plan to tighten control over the judiciary and address what officials call a “deeply broken and politicized” process.

According to internal reports, roughly fifty immigration judges have been dismissed since early August, with another fifty either reassigned or urged to retire. The abrupt shake-up follows a directive from the White House aimed at streamlining immigration cases and reducing the unprecedented backlog of more than three million pending matters.

Judges reportedly received terse email notifications informing them that their services were no longer required. The lack of public explanation or formal announcement has fueled speculation about the motives behind the dismissals, leaving many inside the immigration court system unsettled.

A Court System Under Pressure

President Donald Trump has long accused immigration judges of undermining enforcement policies through lenient rulings, referring to them as “activists in robes.” The current wave of removals appears to reflect that frustration, marking a new phase in the administration’s broader effort to reshape immigration policy from within the judicial branch.

Some of the dismissed judges claim they were targeted for political or ideological reasons. One former immigration judge, Jennifer Peyton—appointed in 2016 during the Obama administration—said she was informed of her dismissal while on vacation. “I had no warning and no record of misconduct,” Peyton said. She believes her removal was politically motivated, coming shortly after she gave a courthouse tour to Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Senator Durbin, now chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Peyton’s firing “a blatant abuse of power” and accused the administration of trying to intimidate judges who rule against its immigration priorities.

Union Pushback and Growing Fear Among Judges

The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), which represents immigration judges across the country, confirmed that approximately fifty members have been dismissed to date. Its president, Matt Biggs, said morale within the judiciary has plummeted.

“There’s a sense of unease and fear spreading through the courts,” Biggs said. “Judges are looking over their shoulders, wondering if their rulings will be judged by law or by politics.”

Some of those let go have also raised claims of discrimination. Carla Espinoza, a former judge in Chicago, alleged that her contract was not renewed because of her gender and Hispanic background. She added that her dismissal came shortly after she dismissed charges against a Mexican national wrongly accused of threatening the president. “My decision followed the law and the evidence,” she said. “But it clearly angered the wrong people.”

Administration officials have disputed her account, suggesting that her handling of the case illustrated why changes were needed.

Restructuring for ‘Efficiency and Accountability’

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) have defended the overhaul, describing it as a long-overdue reform to improve consistency and efficiency.

“This is not about politics—it’s about performance,” a senior DHS official said on background. “For years, certain judges have created bottlenecks, issued inconsistent rulings, and slowed enforcement efforts. The administration is committed to restoring faith in the process.”

The EOIR has been instructed to conduct a full audit of judicial performance, including case completion rates and decision outcomes. The White House has also begun recruiting new judges with experience in immigration prosecution, national security, and law enforcement, signaling an intent to align the bench more closely with the administration’s enforcement priorities.

Critics Warn of a Threat to Judicial Independence

Civil rights advocates and legal scholars see the shake-up very differently. Julia Hernandez, a senior attorney at the American Immigration Council, called the dismissals “a direct assault on judicial independence.”

“Removing judges because their decisions don’t match political goals sets a dangerous precedent,” Hernandez said. “It undermines the integrity of the court system and the public’s trust in fair adjudication.”

Democratic lawmakers have echoed those concerns, accusing the administration of politicizing a judicial body that has traditionally operated with a degree of autonomy. “This is not reform—it’s retaliation,” one Democratic senator said. “They’re sending a message: rule our way or lose your job.”

Still, Trump allies insist that the overhaul is essential to restoring control over a system they argue has grown dysfunctional. “The courts have been out of balance for too long,” one senior White House aide said. “We’re making sure immigration laws are applied as written, not interpreted based on ideology.”

Uncertain Future for Immigration Courts

With millions of cases still waiting to be heard, the path forward remains uncertain. Supporters hope that removing underperforming judges and streamlining procedures will help reduce delays, while critics warn that the purge could create short-term chaos and long-term damage to judicial independence.

For President Trump, however, the overhaul reflects one of his core political promises: enforcing immigration law with greater rigor and less leniency. “The days of activist judges blocking enforcement are over,” one administration official declared.

Whether the sweeping changes succeed in restoring efficiency—or provoke new waves of legal and political backlash—remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: America’s immigration courts, once insulated from partisan conflict, are now at the center of one of the most consequential power struggles of Trump’s presidency.