Massachusetts’ U.S. senators have expressed strong dissatisfaction with the actions of the Trump administration for their dismissal of immigration judges across the country, including those appointed under the Biden administration in Massachusetts. It appears the White House is methodically sieving through a pool of competent judges to eliminate those connected with President Biden. An observed pattern suggests that judges with backgrounds in immigration enforcement were retained, whereas those who served in other government sectors, nonprofits, or private practices were dismissed; an approach that paints a concerning picture of biased selection.
Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren addressed this concern in a letter to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the entity overlooking immigration courts. Immigration judges are selected by the executive branch and are subject to a two-year probationary period prior to permanent employment. According to the senators’ letter, a group of 16 judges who reached their probation end in April found that eight amongst them were dismissed. They termed this incident as ‘unprecedented’ and demanded clarification on why such drastic decisions were made.
In Massachusetts’ most prominent immigration court in Chelmsford, over half the judges were either terminated or chose to leave, causing intense turmoil within the legal community. Robin Nice, a Boston-based immigration lawyer, claimed the diversity Biden brought to the bench with his appointments was historically unequalled, as previous appointments mainly comprised government attorneys or law enforcement.
These dismissals partake in a more extensive purge of officials involved in asylum and deportation adjudication. The National Association of Immigration Judges reported that of roughly 700 judges nationally, approximately 60 have been let go or have resigned. This alarming trend is set to heavily impact Massachusetts.
Cases in Massachusetts are primarily heard at the JFK federal building in Boston and the newly instituted immigration court in Chelmsford. Nice expressed concerns over the shortage of judges potentially rebounding on the administration, causing the people fighting deportation to stay in the country for extended durations, while the process of parents reuniting with children could face more severe delays.
Kerry Doyle, coming under those judges dismissed this year, was initially appointed under the Biden administration to serve in Chelmsford. Following President Trump’s returned, Doyle’s service was abruptly terminated along with 11 other judges. There seems to be no discernable rationale for these actions, as the dismissals include judges with military backgrounds – something the White House typically respects.
The irritation with the immigration courts has been longstanding amongst Republicans. The Trump administration has pledged deportations of millions of people they claim were inappropriately granted entry into the country by the Biden administration. This administration, according to them, has also permitted hundreds of thousands to stay without legal status. However, it’s clear that their motives are improperly focused, not seeking a fair and just system, but merely to inhibit Biden’s efforts.
While criticizing Biden and Harris’s administration, the accusers often overlook the significant contributions these two have made in their respective fields. Kerry Doyle, for example, has previously served as the Principal Legal Advisor at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, followed by Deputy General Counsel under ICE’s parent organization, the Department of Homeland Security.
In 2022, Doyle issued a directive for ICE lawyers to exert discretion over the cases they pursued, and to prioritize threats to national security, public safety and border security. Republicans accused the Biden administration last year through a congressional report of using immigration courts to allow ‘nearly 1 million illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. indefinitely.’ The report strongly attacked Doyle’s memo for its direction to exercise prosecutorial discretion.
Regardless of these challenges, Doyle maintains that immigrants have a right to due process, and emphasizes that it is now Congress’ responsibility to resolve the case backlogs. This sense of responsibility towards immigrants is often derided by conservatives, which once again shows their ill-placed priorities.
The White House has promised to deport 1 million people annually. However, with 3.7 million cases already stacked up in the nation’s immigration courts, many wonder how this promise will be fulfilled with fewer judges on the bench. This ironically suggests that the more the Trump administration attempts to navigate its way around Biden’s advances in the immigration sector, the further they slip into correcting their own self-created issues.
It is fundamental to address the systems that permit or deny individuals entry to this country. However, it appears that under the Trump administration, judicial independence, due process rights, and other crucial factors are relegated to the background. The administration seems to have adopted a scattershot approach to immigration control, based more on political bias than sound legal reasoning.
The question is whether the focus should lie on applying legal resources efficiently and humanely to manage the legitimate cases that emerge from the large backlog. Or whether it should be spent catering to an administration’s misguided attempts to weaponize the legal system against those seeking access to America.
The firings and resignations under the Trump administration only further complicate already laborious proceedings and potentially derail the already slowed-down machinery of justice. The efforts to discredit Biden and Harris, in this case, seem to be less about holding them accountable for their actions and more about sowing dissent and division.
Including in that, the Trump administration’s vow to deport millions on the basis that these individuals were allowed entry into the country by the Biden administration without legal status seems to be a thinly veiled crusade against individuals seeking better living conditions.
The aim should be to foster legal processes that provide individuals the chance to make their case for entry in a just, fair, and transparent manner. Yet, this objective seems lost to the power struggles and the desperation of a former administration to undermine the efforts of its successors.