DOJ Seeks to Empower Immigration Judges to Hold Lawyers and Their Clients in Contempt

The Justice Department is proposing a new rule to empower federal immigration judges to hold attorneys, their clients and witnesses in contempt if they violate court orders, in a move that departs from historical practice and which legal experts warn could be unconstitutional.

The regulatory proposal by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an office of the DOJ that runs the immigration court system, would allow immigration judges for the very first time to impose fines ranging from $1,000 up to as much as $3,500 if an attorney or other individual continues to defy court orders.

{snip}

The proposal notably exempts federal government employees, such as Department of Homeland Security attorneys, from being subject to any contempt order by an immigration judge — in what critics say represents a lopsided and unfair scenario that would allow potential government misconduct to go unchecked.

In federal district courts, by contrast, Article III judges have the power to hold all attorneys who appear before the court in criminal or civil contempt, if warranted. In its proposal, the Justice Department argues that giving immigration judges the power to sanction government lawyers is not necessary because DHS attorneys can be disciplined by the Office of the Inspector General or the Office of Professional Responsibility.

{snip}

At the Executive Office for Immigration Review, hundreds of longtime federal immigration judges have left since last year, many of whom were fired abruptly without warning or cause. In 2025, EOIR lost 370 attorneys, according to government data analyzed and published by a former FBI analyst.

At the same time it has lost so many judges, the immigration court system is facing a current backlog of more than 3.5 million cases, according to the proposed rule.

{snip}