Courtrooms as Traps: How U.S. Immigration Hearings Are Being Used to Fast‑Track Deportations

A government attorney sitting inside a courtroom quietly texted an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent waiting in the hallway: “I can’t do this.” Minutes later a man who had come for what he believed to be a routine hearing — accompanied by his legal‑resident wife and their 7‑month‑old infant — was declared eligible for expedited removal after a government motion to dismiss his asylum claim. Plainclothes agents who had been surveilling him moved in the moment he left the courtroom. Four minutes after the exchange, the agent texted: “Got him.”

Coordinated courthouse sweeps

Over several months, reporters observed immigration hearings in 21 cities and documented repeated patterns: government attorneys moving to dismiss cases in open court, near‑verbatim text updates sent to enforcement officers waiting outside, and immediate arrests in courthouse hallways. Screenshots of those messages were provided by a government official who feared reprisal and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Those scenes reflect a broader shift: immigration courtrooms increasingly function as sites for identifying and apprehending people the government seeks to remove. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys reportedly mark certain dockets as “amenable” to dismissal on internal spreadsheets so Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can preselect which respondents to pursue if dismissals are granted. According to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, courthouse arrests are often coordinated days in advance to meet removal targets, sometimes without full consideration of family ties, vulnerability, or the merits of individual claims.

Systemic pressure and weakened independence

Advocates and former judges point to structural pressures that have long undermined the immigration court system and say recent policy moves have intensified them. Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department, and immigration judges lack the procedural protections and lifetime tenure of Article III judges. Since the start of the current administration’s second term, the Justice Department has issued a steady stream of policy memos making it easier to hire and fire judges and cautioning against perceived pro‑migrant bias.

Performance metrics introduced in prior years — including dashboards that measure judges’ output and set minimum annual case completions — add to the pressure. Judges report being forced to move quickly through crowded dockets: “It’s like deciding death‑penalty cases in a traffic‑court setting,” said retired Judge Dana Leigh Marks.

“When Americans picture a courtroom, there are a few core expectations of fairness, dignity and impartiality. That’s what makes a court — not a room with a bench or person with a robe. But what we have here is a vision completely turned on its head.” — Ashley Tabaddor, former immigration judge

Mass firings and morale

Nearly 90 immigration judges — many appointed during the previous administration — have been removed or encouraged to leave since January. Critics note that judges who were fired often granted asylum at higher rates than their peers. Many current and former court officials describe low morale, fear of retaliation, and lawyers haunted by the detentions they helped facilitate. One DHS attorney said they are tormented by the sound of shackles and the knowledge of people they prosecuted now in detention.

Consequences for migrants and the courts

The tactics appear to be producing results the administration favors: voluntary departures surged, with more than 14,000 people seeking permission to self‑deport in the first eight months of 2025, according to data compiled by Mobile Pathways, a nonprofit tracking migration proceedings. At the same time, many migrants now request virtual hearings or skip court appearances out of fear of arrest.

The courthouse arrests have prompted a wave of legal pushback. Since mid‑May, more than 3,000 habeas corpus petitions were filed seeking review of detention decisions, adding strain to federal courts and signaling growing litigation over whether people are lawfully held after courthouse sweeps.

Real people, real impacts

Individual stories underscore the human cost. A Cuban man detained the day he and his American wife moved into their first home filed a federal petition. An HIV‑positive Brazilian was detained days after his husband’s death. In northern Virginia, a judge denied deportation for a Honduran father who had appeared with his infant and a disabled son; moments later, ICE agents arrested the father in the hallway while the child cried “¡Papá!” The agency later said the man voluntarily left the country after three months in detention.

Legal aid has also been curtailed: federal cuts eliminated roughly $30 million in programs that provided free representation to migrants. Nonprofits and volunteer lawyers now often meet clients in parking lots or improvised spaces outside courthouses to avoid exposing them to arrest.

Where the debate stands

The Justice Department defends its approach, saying DHS decides arrests and that reforms restore integrity and impartiality to adjudication. Supporters argue the changes respond to a surge in asylum claims and an overburdened system. Critics — including immigration judges, legal advocates and some academics — argue the emphasis on speed, quotas and coordinated enforcement in courtrooms undermines individualized review and due process.

As the system evolves, migrants, lawyers and judges are contesting its direction in court and in public debate. The central question remains whether courts should primarily adjudicate claims or serve as mechanisms for expedited enforcement — and what protections remain for people seeking asylum.

Reporting: Goodman and Sullivan, with contributions from multiple reporters.