Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-02**Lead**
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken the extraordinary step of moving to remove several federal immigration judges from their current caseloads, citing a recent interview given to The New York Times that allegedly revealed prejudicial views and undermined the neutrality of immigration court proceedings. The motions, filed in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), mark an escalation in the ongoing tension between the Biden administration and the judiciary over immigration enforcement.
**Context**
Immigration judges in the United States are employees of the DOJ, not Article III judges, meaning they serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General. This administrative structure gives the DOJ broad authority to reassign or remove judges, but such actions are rarely taken based on public statements. The current controversy stems from an interview published by The New York Times in which several unnamed immigration judges were quoted expressing frustration with the pace of cases and suggesting that political pressure from the administration had influenced their rulings. While the judges were not identified, the DOJ moved swiftly to identify those who may have participated and sought their removal from active dockets.
According to internal memos reviewed by multiple news outlets, the DOJ argued that any judge who aired grievances to the media breached the code of conduct for EOIR personnel, which prohibits discussing pending cases or revealing internal deliberations. The agency claimed that the interview cast doubt on the impartiality of the immigration court system and that the affected judges could no longer preside over cases without a perception of bias. Legal experts note that this is a rare use of administrative power, as the DOJ typically handles judicial misconduct through confidential channels rather than public motions.
The immigration court system currently faces a backlog of over 1.6 million pending cases, according to official data from the Department of Justice. Critics argue that targeting judges for speaking out could worsen the crisis by reducing the number of available adjudicators and chilling future whistleblowing. Supporters of the DOJ’s action say that judges must remain neutral arbiters and that any breach of confidentiality erodes public trust.
**Analysis**
The DOJ’s move is significant because it tests the limits of executive oversight over the immigration judiciary. While the Attorney General has plenary authority over EOIR, removing judges for giving interviews could set a precedent that discourages judicial independence. Immigration advocates warn that if judges fear retaliation for expressing concerns, they may be less likely to scrutinize government arguments or issue rulings that contradict administration policy. This could tilt the balance of power further toward prosecutors in removal proceedings.
Conversely, the DOJ’s position is that the interview compromised the integrity of specific pending cases. By removing the judges, the department hopes to avoid appeals based on claims of bias. However, the move may backfire if it sparks a broader debate about the lack of tenure protections for immigration judges. Several civil liberties organizations have already called for legislation to make immigration judges independent of the DOJ, arguing that the current system violates due process. The American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a statement saying the removals are “an assault on the impartial administration of justice.”
As the situation develops, the courts themselves may weigh in. Some of the affected judges have filed motions to block their reassignment, arguing that the DOJ is punishing them for protected speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could hear a challenge if the issue reaches the federal courts. Meanwhile, the New York Times interview continues to generate scrutiny, with some members of Congress requesting a full investigation into the DOJ’s handling of immigration courts.
**Sources**
The New York Times – initial interview with unnamed immigration judges; Reuters – DOJ motions and internal memos; American Immigration Lawyers Association – public statement; Executive Office for Immigration Review – official data on backlog; Department of Justice – press releases and code of conduct.