New DOJ rule would allow immigration judges to hold lawyers in contempt

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced a sweeping regulatory change that will shift the responsibility of adjudicating asylum cases from immigration courts to federal immigration judges, marking a major expansion of the agency’s role in handling immigration matters. The new rule, unveiled on Monday, aims to streamline the process by allowing immigration judges, key figures in the Trump administration’s deportation strategy, to take on a broader range of duties previously reserved for specialized immigration courts. This development comes amid ongoing concerns over backlogs and delays in processing asylum claims, which have grown significantly under recent administrations. The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register, grants immigration judges the authority to hold attorneys, their clients, and witnesses in contempt for violating court orders. Under the new framework, judges could impose fines ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 on individuals who fail to comply with court directives. This measure is unprecedented, as it diverges from historical practices where immigration judges had limited powers to enforce compliance. Legal experts have raised alarms, arguing that the rule may conflict with constitutional principles governing the separation of powers. They point out that immigration courts operate under the executive branch, while contempt powers traditionally belong to the judiciary and legislature. Critics argue that the rule creates an imbalance by exempting federal government employees, including Department of Homeland Security attorneys, from being held in contempt. This exemption, they claim, allows potential misconduct by government officials to remain unchecked. In contrast, federal district courts, which are part of the judicial branch, have long had the authority to hold all attorneys in contempt if warranted. Gregory Chen, representing the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the proposal “completely skewed” and warned that it reflects an attempt to intimidate immigration attorneys rather than uphold the rule of law. The rule also aligns with broader efforts by the Trump administration to accelerate deportations and reduce the number of asylum seekers granted protection. Over the past few years, the administration has implemented numerous measures aimed at limiting access to asylum, including stricter eligibility criteria and increased detention rates. These actions have led to widespread criticism from advocacy groups and legal professionals, who argue that they undermine due process and human rights protections. The implementation of the new rule coincides with a severe shortage of immigration judges within the federal system. Since last year, hundreds of experienced judges have left the profession, often without clear explanations or warnings. In 2025 alone, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration court system, saw the departure of 370 attorneys, according to data analyzed by a former FBI analyst. Many of these departures occurred abruptly, raising questions about the stability and fairness of the system. Some former judges have described working conditions that pressured them to prioritize expediting deportations over protecting the rights of noncitizens. The proposed changes also raise concerns about the impact on legal representation. Karen Donoso Stevens, a former immigration judge, warned that the new rule “ties into the culture of fear,” suggesting that the threat of contempt sanctions could discourage attorneys from challenging decisions or advocating for their clients. This dynamic, she argued, could further erode trust in the legal system and limit access to justice for vulnerable populations. As the public prepares to review the proposed rule, the next steps will likely involve a period of public comment and possible revisions. With the rule currently open for feedback, advocates and legal experts are urging the administration to reconsider its approach, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to constitutional standards. The outcome of this process will shape the future of immigration law and the rights of individuals seeking refuge in the United States.