The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which operates the nation’s immigration courts, has seen sweeping changes under the Donald Trump administration. Over 50 immigration judges have reportedly been dismissed since early August, and approximately another 50 judges have been transferred or encouraged to retire. These actions form part of a broader strategy to reduce the backlog of more than 3 million pending immigration cases and to realign the system in favor of faster enforcement.

Proponents of the overhaul argue that the court system was “dysfunctional and overly politicised”, and that stronger performance standards and a more enforcement-centric orientation are needed. Dismissals were delivered abruptly — in some cases via short email notices without detailed explanation — signalling the administration’s intent to reshape the judiciary’s role. The administration has also broadened eligibility criteria for temporary immigration judges and even considered deploying military lawyers in judge roles, in part to relieve the backlog.

Critics, however, warn this overhaul raises serious concerns about judicial independence and the fairness of the immigration-court process. Many of the dismissed judges contend their removal was politically motivated — for example, one judge claimed she was dismissed after hosting a Democratic senator. The trade-off between speed and due process is a recurring theme: shrinking the number of experienced judges could undermine the ability of the courts to deliver impartial justice, and may actually worsen delays in some cases.

As the administration presses ahead with its agenda, the fate of the immigration-court system remains uncertain. Will it become more efficient at handling caseloads, or will the restructuring erode protections for non-citizens and shift the courts further toward enforcement rather than adjudication? The coming months will help determine whether these reforms achieve their stated goals or provoke longer-term systemic consequences.