Inside Donald Trump's Attack on Immigration Court

Federal immigration courts face strained conditions, including lean staffing, absent bailiffs and stenographers, and remote interpreters. Many respondents appear without legal representation, and hearings operate as rapid master-calendar sessions to prepare cases for trial. Prosecutors from the Department of Homeland Security present standardized allegations of unlawful entry and potential deportation. Judges describe a pattern of firings and administrative interference that erodes judicial independence and hampers fair adjudication. Observers, pro-bono attorneys, and public officials sometimes attend hearings, but systemic resource and governance pressures hinder the courts' capacity to adjudicate asylum and immigration claims effectively.

"On a Thursday morning last month, Patrick O'Brien, a federal immigration judge, walked into his courtroom in downtown San Francisco. He was scheduled for a master-calendar hearing, a roll call, essentially, to get cases ready for trial. O'Brien was wearing a matte-black robe that seemed to absorb the artificial light overhead. He took his seat, scanned the room, and angled himself toward a computer monitor."

"The court was leanly staffed. There was a judicial clerk but no bailiff or stenographer. Opposite the judge were tables for the prosecution—the Department of Homeland Security—and for the respondent, a succession of immigrants who were applying for asylum. A Spanish interpreter appeared as a faceless box on a big screen. About ten people, all Latino, sat in wooden pews, gripping folders full of esoteric documents. Hardly anyone had come with legal representation. A pro-bono 'attorney of the day' from a local nonprofit introduced herself in Spanish and took down names on a clipboard."

"O'Brien let the few immigrants who had representation go first, since lawyers had places to be. He called the first case. 'My client is right here,' the lawyer said. 'She's a four-year-old child here with her father.' The girl swung her feet beneath her chair. Each case took a predictable shape. O'Brien ran through the government's allegations: that the respondents had entered the United States on a certain date, at a certain location, without permission; that they were citizens of another country, and would be deported the"

Read at The New Yorker