RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from CBS News — Top — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sources
The Justice Department is\u00a0proposing\u00a0a 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. \u00a0\u00a0The 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."It is crucial for immigration judges to have every tool available\u00e2\u0080\u0094including the authority to impose civil money penalties\u00e2\u0080\u0094to control the proceedings before them," the Justice Department wrote in its proposal.\u00a0The proposal notably exempts federal government employees, such as Department of Homeland Security attorneys, from being subject to any contempt order by an immigration judge \u00e2\u0080\u0094 in what critics say represents a lopsided and unfair scenario that would allow potential government misconduct to go unchecked.\u00a0In 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."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\u0027s intimidation tactics," said Gregory Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.\u00a0The new proposal marks the latest in a series of efforts by the Trump administration to more readily crack down on immigration and carry out President Trump\u0027s mass deportation policies.\u00a0At 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\u00a0published\u00a0by a former FBI analyst.\u00a0At 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.Many former immigration judges have spoken publicly about pressures they faced to expedite deportations or detain people without bond. In ads seeking to hire replacement judges, the DOJ has referred to the role as being that of a "deportation judge."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, published in the Federal Register, states immigration judges would be allowed to sanction lawyers or their clients for a variety of offenses, from repeatedly failing to appear on time or failing to follow orders, up to disorderly conduct or making false statements.\u00a0Several legal experts who spoke with CBS News said the proposal is potentially unlawful because immigration courts are part of the executive branch and fall under Article II of the Constitution, which states that the executive branch has no contempt authority. That power belongs exclusively to the judicial and legislative branches.\u00a0The proposal is "constitutionally flawed," Chen said.\u00a0The public will have 60 days to review the proposal and submit comments.
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.