Immigration Judges Could Gain New Contempt Powers Under Proposed Rule
Wertynews.com – The Justice Department has unveiled a regulatory proposal designed to strengthen the authority of federal immigration judges. Under this new framework, these judges would be able to hold attorneys, witnesses, and their clients in contempt when court orders are violated. This represents a significant shift from established practice, and several legal scholars have cautioned that the measure might conflict with constitutional principles.
Financial Penalties and Scope of Authority
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which operates the nation’s immigration court system as part of the DOJ, introduced the proposal. For the first time, immigration judges could levy monetary sanctions ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 against individuals who persist in defying judicial directives. The department emphasized in its documentation that providing judges with civil money penalty authority is essential for maintaining order during proceedings.
However, the proposal contains a notable exception: federal government workers, including attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security, would be shielded from contempt orders issued by immigration judges. Critics argue this creates an imbalanced situation where government misconduct could escape scrutiny.
Comparison to Federal District Courts
In federal district courts, Article III judges possess the authority to place any attorney appearing before them in either criminal or civil contempt when appropriate. The Justice Department contends that extending similar powers to immigration judges for government lawyers is unnecessary. Instead, DHS attorneys can face disciplinary action through the Office of the Inspector General or the Office of Professional Responsibility.
“By proposing a completely skewed regulation that empowers judges to hold in contempt only the attorneys for immigrants but not ICE attorneys, the Administration has revealed that its goal has nothing to do with the just and balanced rule of law. Instead, this rule is another effort to target immigration attorneys that falls in line with the President’s intimidation tactics,” said Gregory Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Broader Context of Immigration Court Changes
This proposal follows a pattern of Trump administration initiatives aimed at tightening immigration enforcement and advancing mass deportation objectives. The Executive Office for Immigration Review has experienced substantial staff turnover, with hundreds of experienced federal immigration judges departing since last year. Many of these departures occurred suddenly, without prior notice or stated justification.
Government statistics compiled by a former FBI analyst indicate that EOIR lost 370 attorneys in 2025 alone. Meanwhile, the immigration court system confronts a mounting backlog exceeding 3.5 million cases. Former judges have reported experiencing pressure to accelerate deportations and order detention without bond for individuals awaiting hearings.
In recruitment advertisements for new judicial positions, the DOJ has characterized the role as that of a “deportation judge,” signaling a shift in emphasis.
Constitutional Concerns and Public Comment
“The new proposal that would allow immigration judges to hold noncitizens or their lawyers in contempt ‘ties into the culture of fear,’ said Karen Donoso Stevens, a former longtime immigration judge. ‘First, scare the judges. Then the judges will scare the attorneys.’
The proposed rule outlines various offenses that could trigger sanctions, including repeated failures to appear, noncompliance with directives, disorderly behavior, and making false statements. Several legal experts consulted by CBS News expressed concerns about the proposal’s legality. Because immigration courts operate within the executive branch under Article II of the Constitution, they traditionally lack contempt authority—a power reserved for the judicial and legislative branches.
Chen described the proposal as “constitutionally flawed.” The public will have 60 days to examine the proposal and submit their feedback through the Federal Register.
