The EOIR and its critics are at loggerheads over a sweeping shift in immigration policy, with former judges and policy analysts describing directives that push decisions to align with administration goals, undermining due process and the integrity of proceedings.

The mass firings and staff reshaping have coincided with a broader shift in how courts operate, potentially accelerating backlogs and restructuring caseload management.

Prominent voices from the Chelmsford and Boston Immigrant Court sectors, including Nina Fróes and Sarah Cade, argue about accountability, backlog causes, and the impact of policy-driven denials on judicial independence.

Starting in early 2025, a wave of terminations hit the EOIR, including hundreds of immigration judges, signaling a dramatic reworking of how asylum and removal cases are handled.

Judges and staff report a toxic work environment and directives that pressure alignment with administration goals, with some cases terminated or closed despite performance on the bench.

Policy memoranda—52 issued in about 15 months—have shaped how cases are decided, seemingly steering asylum denial rates and other relief pathways.

Backlogs in removal proceedings have surged, with the Chelmsford backlog alone around 60,000 cases, while other courts face closures and nationwide removal caseloads remaining historically high.

Fewer judges handling rising caseloads, combined with court closures, have intensified pressure on the system and raised questions about capacity to deliver fair hearings.

Litigation over terminations continues, with concerns about BIA precedents and the toll on judges, attorneys, and staff, including potential unemployment benefits and relocation.

Observers frame this as part of a long-term transformation of U.S. immigration courts under successive administrations, with lasting implications for due process, backlog management, and credibility.

Morale among judges, including fears of further terminations and court closures, underscores concerns about the independence and credibility of immigration courts going forward.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued numerous precedent-setting decisions that critics say micromanage judges and tighten relief avenues, affecting bond hearings and other relief like asylum and juvenile provisions.