Stock Markets March 12, 2026

Justice Department Swears In 42 Immigration Judges, Many From Enforcement Backgrounds

New appointments added as administration seeks to align immigration courts with deportation-focused policy and reduce a multi-million case backlog

By Avery Klein
Justice Department Swears In 42 Immigration Judges, Many From Enforcement Backgrounds

The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review swore in 42 new immigration judges to serve in 17 states, many with prior experience in immigration enforcement or prosecution. The hires come amid a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape immigration courts, supplementing earlier permanent and temporary appointments and replacing more than 100 judges who were fired or left since the administration took office.

Key Points

  • The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review swore in 42 new immigration judges to serve in 17 states, many with backgrounds in prosecution or immigration enforcement.
  • These permanent hires supplement 20 earlier permanent appointments since October and numerous temporary judges, and follow the firing of more than 100 judges since the administration took office last year.
  • The additions are intended to address a backlog of approximately 3.2 million immigration court cases and to replace at least 104 judges fired since January 2025; the changes affect the legal and government administration sectors.

On March 12, the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review announced that a class of 42 new immigration judges had been sworn in to serve in immigration courts across 17 states, including California, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Texas. The department described the group as part of an effort to make progress on a substantial case backlog while shifting the composition of the immigration bench toward individuals with enforcement and prosecutorial experience.

The new appointees augment 20 other permanent hiring announcements the department has made since October and join dozens of temporary judges who have been brought on for limited terms. Many of those temporary appointments have military backgrounds and are authorized to serve up to six months. The recent hiring wave follows a period in which the department dismissed more than 100 immigration judges since the administration assumed office last year.

Immigration judges operate within the Justice Department rather than as members of the federal judiciary. The administration has asserted that the president and Attorney General Pam Bondi have the constitutional authority to remove immigration judges as inferior officers - a position that has informed personnel changes within the immigration courts.

According to the department, the latest cohort of 42 judges includes several with military service, but most have histories as prosecutors or in immigration enforcement. More than one-third of the new judges previously worked on immigration matters at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and a number moved directly from roles as lawyers at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

These hires are intended in part to replace at least 104 immigration judges who have been fired since January 2025, along with an almost equal number who have accepted buyouts, resigned or retired during the same period, out of an approximate total of 700 judges, the National Association of Immigration Judges says. The turnover has occurred as the immigration court system contends with a backlog that Mobile Pathways, a nonprofit that analyzes immigration court data, estimates at about 3.2 million cases as of December 31.

Attorney General Pam Bondi commented on the new judges in a department statement, saying: "This Department of Justice has made reducing the immigration court backlog a top priority, and these 42 new highly qualified judges will help us deliver on that goal. Under the Trump Administration, immigration judges will decide cases based on the law - not politics."

Some of the newly installed judges have signaled public alignment with the administration’s tougher stance on immigration. One example named among the appointees is Kieran Lalor, who will serve at the Ulster Immigration Court in New York. Lalor, who previously served as an elected Republican lawmaker in the New York State Assembly, wrote in a 2017 op-ed in the Poughkeepsie Journal criticizing a $10 million budget allocation under then-Governor Andrew Cuomo that he said would be used to fund "illegal immigrants’ lawyers to fight deportation." In that piece he wrote, "New Yorkers fund ICE as federal taxpayers. Albany shouldn’t ask them to also fund the lawbreakers."

Department officials and supporters frame the wave of hires as a dual response to the heavy caseload facing immigration courts and as a means of ensuring that newly seated judges reflect enforcement-oriented perspectives favored by the administration. Critics and professional groups have highlighted the scale of turnover within the immigration judiciary and the rapid pace of replacement, citing concerns about institutional continuity.

Practically, the newly appointed judges will start handling matters in immigration courts across the designated states and will gradually take the places of those who departed under the recent personnel changes. The department’s announced strategy combines permanent hires with shorter-term appointments to expand the roster of adjudicators available to process cases.


Contextual note: The information above reflects the Justice Department’s announcement and data attributed to the National Association of Immigration Judges and Mobile Pathways as referenced in the department statement and public records released alongside the swearing-in.

Risks

  • High turnover among immigration judges - over 100 fired and roughly the same number leaving via buyouts, resignations or retirements - may disrupt institutional continuity and case processing, posing operational risks for the immigration court system (impacts: legal sector, government administration).
  • Shifting the bench toward appointees with enforcement backgrounds may alter adjudicative dynamics and public confidence in impartiality, potentially affecting litigation strategies and outcomes for affected individuals and legal service providers (impacts: legal sector, immigration services).
  • Reliance on temporary appointments, including many with military backgrounds who can serve up to six months, could create short-term capacity but may limit continuity and long-term case management effectiveness (impacts: legal sector, government administration).

More from Stock Markets

Lucid Says It Will Reach Positive Cash Flow by Late Decade as It Pushes Affordable EVs and Driverless Services Mar 12, 2026 Amazon Said to Shift Prime Day into Late June, Moving Event Into Q2 Mar 12, 2026 Trump nominates State Department public diplomacy chief to head U.S. global broadcasting agency Mar 12, 2026 BuzzFeed Flags Going-Concern Risk, Suspends 2026 Forecast as Cash Pressures Mount Mar 12, 2026 Stryker Says Cyberattack Disrupts Orders, Production and Shipments Mar 12, 2026