“Silent Dismissals: Immigration Courts Face a Reckoning”

In a move that sent ripples through the federal judiciary, the quiet dismissal of approximately 50 immigration judges marked a sharp turn in U.S. immigration policy enforcement. The change came not with press conferences or sweeping announcements, but through brief, unceremonious emails—three lines long, devoid of explanations, yet crystal clear in their implication: the era of ideologically driven immigration court decisions has come to an end.

With President Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the shakeup reflects his administration’s renewed focus on restoring order, both at the border and within the legal machinery that oversees it. Despite a historic backlog of over three million immigration cases still burdening the system—a legacy of the previous administration—the focus has shifted to purging what many in the administration consider judicial activism from within the immigration courts themselves.

Among those dismissed is Jennifer Peyton, a judge appointed during the Obama years. Peyton, who had reportedly received glowing performance evaluations, says she was blindsided while on vacation when she received the termination notice. She blames her dismissal on political pressure and even references a tour she gave to Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic Judiciary Committee Chair. Durbin, in turn, has called her removal an “abuse of power.” But to many observers on the other side of the aisle, it appears to be a long-overdue correction of systemic rot—one judge at a time.

The National Association of Immigration Judges has spoken out, stating that around 50 judges have been outright dismissed, while another 50 have been reassigned or subtly pushed toward early retirement. The union’s president, Matt Biggs, said remaining judges are feeling “threatened.” But this sentiment is viewed by Trump’s allies not as a crisis, but as an expected response from a system that has long operated with impunity.

Take, for example, Carla Espinoza, a short-term judge in Chicago who claims her non-renewal was due to her Hispanic background and gender. But critics point to her decision in a high-profile case: Espinoza released a Mexican national flagged by Homeland Security after allegations of threatening the President. She deemed the case “unsubstantiated,” but her removal may have more to do with a pattern of decisions that contradicted national security interests than with her ethnicity.

Another voice in the growing controversy is Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice lawyer once praised for defending Trump-era immigration initiatives. Reuveni now positions himself as a whistleblower, alleging that DOJ leaders are bypassing legal procedure to expedite deportations and override judicial decisions. He describes it as manipulation; others see it as long-overdue efficiency in a system notorious for delays and leniency.

According to Reuveni, senior DOJ officials have taken a more aggressive posture toward deportation enforcement, bypassing judges to clear backlogs and remove individuals flagged by immigration authorities. One such official, Emil Bove, was recently confirmed to a federal appeals court—a development that alarmed Democrats who once used the courts as a political lever and now face losing influence over them.

Critics of the firings argue that it amounts to a political purge, while supporters claim it is a much-needed realignment. Trump has long promised not only to secure the border but to overhaul what he characterized as a “broken” immigration court system. His administration views these dismissals as part of a broader reform strategy, eliminating judges perceived as placing ideology above law.

The affected judges have begun to speak out, painting themselves as casualties of a politicized purge. But within the Trump administration, their complaints are viewed as the expected backlash from individuals unaccustomed to accountability. In their view, these judges had grown too comfortable exercising unchecked discretion—delaying or halting deportations, interpreting asylum laws loosely, and frustrating enforcement agencies in the process.

For years, critics of the immigration courts argued that certain judges operated more like advocates than arbiters. Now, the shift in tone and policy suggests the judiciary itself is being held to a higher standard of alignment with the law as interpreted by the executive branch.

As for Reuveni’s warning—that a chorus of dissent is rising from within—the administration believes another chorus is rising louder still: that of everyday Americans tired of a chaotic immigration system. In their view, the voices now being silenced are not whistleblowers but bureaucrats who believed they were untouchable.

President Trump promised accountability, and for the first time in a long time, immigration courtrooms may be feeling its weight. Whether the public sees this as justice or overreach, one thing is certain—the immigration system is undergoing its most dramatic transformation in decades.