In a significant shift in the Trump administration’s immigration policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that temporary immigration judges will no longer be required to have experience in immigration law. This new rule, published on August 28 in the Federal Register, comes in response to the growing backlog in immigration courts, which now exceeds 3.7 million pending cases. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees immigration courts, will now allow the selection of temporary judges without prior experience in immigration law, provided they receive approval from the Attorney General. According to the DOJ, this change aims to address the severe delay in immigration cases by expanding the pool of potential candidates for the courts. Previously, temporary judges were required to be former immigration judges, administrative law judges, or attorneys with at least ten years of experience in immigration law. Among the justifications cited in the announcement, it states that: "Experience in immigration law is not always a reliable indicator of success as an immigration judge, and the EOIR has hired individuals from other federal agencies and departments without prior immigration experience who have been successful and have become role models," the notice reads. The announcement comes after more than 100 immigration judges were dismissed or reassigned in early 2025, significantly reducing the number of permanent judges. While the Department of Justice maintains that this measure is intended to address the mounting workload, critics and immigrant advocates argue that the policy appears politically motivated, with the goal of accelerating deportation proceedings. Increase in Temporary Judges and Involvement of Military Attorneys In addition to this regulatory change, the Department of Defense (DOD) has approved the deployment of up to 600 military attorneys to serve as temporary immigration judges, effectively doubling the number of immigration judges under the DOJ. These temporary judges have renewable six-month terms and are intended to support—but not replace—permanent judges. However, this shift has raised concerns about the politicization of immigration courts. Temporary judges, including military attorneys, could be more vulnerable to political pressure, given that their appointments depend on continued approval from the administration. This type of structure could compromise the impartiality of the courts and increase perceptions that immigration decisions are more politically driven than based on legal facts. Concerns About Legality and Due Process The recent changes have also drawn legal scrutiny. The assignment of military attorneys to judicial roles may violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the armed forces in enforcing civilian law. Additionally, some human rights experts worry that temporary judges lacking adequate immigration law experience may not possess the necessary knowledge to ensure due process for migrants. Immigrant advocates warn that this trend could further politicize immigration courts and undermine the rights of immigrants, who are already navigating an extremely overburdened judicial system. As immigration courts increasingly rely on military attorneys and other temporary judges, it becomes even more critical for Congress to enhance oversight of these processes to ensure judicial independence is upheld. Reactions and Future Outlook This policy change has drawn criticism not only from immigrant advocacy groups but also from some of the dismissed immigration judges, who claim the recent decisions were politically motivated and, in some cases, rooted in gender discrimination. The Department of Justice, for its part, insists that the reform is a necessary response to the growing backlog of immigration cases and that it will enable a more efficient immigration justice system. As this new policy takes effect, it is expected that new legal challenges will emerge regarding its legality, particularly concerning the role of military attorneys in immigration courts. Nonetheless, the debate over court independence and access to fair legal proceedings will remain a central issue in the ongoing reform of the U.S. immigration system.

According to sources such as Newbreak, several specific cases have emerged where a judge dismisses the case during the hearing, but ICE officers are waiting outside the courthouse to detain the individual as they leave. Newbreak.com recently reported that at least eight arrests of this kind have taken place in Memphis, with similar cases occurring in other parts of the country as well. One of the most recent known cases involved a 20-year-old Venezuelan student who was arrested by ICE officers after leaving a courtroom in New York. The young man, named Dylan, was in the process of applying for asylum. He attended the hearing with his mother, without a lawyer, believing it was a routine appearance that would have no consequences. In another instance, four asylum seekers were arrested by ICE on May 27, 2025, at the San Francisco Immigration Court while attending hearings to present their asylum applications. According to an article published by La Nación, a New York judge reported that ICE agents have been arresting undocumented immigrants inside state courthouses, despite existing laws that prohibit such practices. These arrests have raised serious concerns among civil rights advocates and immigrant communities, particularly in light of the stricter immigration policies implemented since Donald Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025. Importantly, in most of these cases, the individuals arrested attended their hearings without legal representation. This likely contributes to the effectiveness of these arrests, as ICE may be taking advantage of the detainees’ lack of legal knowledge. While having an attorney present does not guarantee protection from arrest, it is considered a significant advantage. Legal representation can help build a stronger case and present more compelling legal arguments to prevent arbitrary detention. At Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to fight for the rights of our immigrant communities. If you need legal guidance, don’t hesitate to contact us at 719-602-4477.

On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice fired immigration attorney Erez Reuveni following his handling of the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Reuveni had acknowledged during a court hearing that the deportation was an "administrative error" and expressed frustration over the government's failure to provide clear answers on how to reverse the situation. According to CNN, “Reuveni was initially placed on administrative leave days after expressing frustration over the government's inability to provide answers to a judge’s questions in the case. In court, he said of the government’s position: ‘Our only arguments are jurisdictional... He should not have been sent to El Salvador.’” His dismissal was interpreted as a consequence of failing to fully support the administration’s official position. Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the decision, stating that lawyers must “zealously” advocate for the administration’s policies or face consequences. Presidential advisor Stephen Miller downplayed the error, blaming it on a poorly worded line written by the attorney. However, Reuveni’s case is not an isolated incident. According to NBC Boston, “The U.S. Department of Justice has fired more than two dozen employees, most of whom worked in immigration courts... An immigration judge assigned to Massachusetts, who was fired on Friday, and the union representing immigration judges nationwide are speaking out about the dismissals, which come as President Donald Trump moves swiftly to reduce the federal workforce.” As for Kilmar Abrego, “a federal judge ordered his return to the U.S., but the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the order. The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, refused to facilitate his return, labeling him a ‘terrorist’ and claiming he would not ‘traffic a terrorist back into the U.S.,’” El Salvador News recently reported. Despite intimidation and increasingly harsh immigration policies, at Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to defend immigrants and pursue every solution to keep families together.

According to documents reviewed by The Washington Post , the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently authorized access for approximately six advisors from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to the ECAS system—a highly confidential database that contains detailed information on millions of immigrants, including names, addresses, medical histories, and court testimonies. This system, typically restricted to attorneys and federal investigators, holds records of all interactions—both legal and undocumented—between immigrants and the U.S. government dating back to the 1990s. Among the DOGE advisors granted access are individuals connected to Elon Musk, including employees from his private equity firm. One of them, Marko Elez, has previously been linked to racist social media posts. This access was granted despite a federal judge in Maryland issuing a temporary restraining order in February of this year against the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). In her opinion, the judge stated that the plaintiffs—which include members of several major labor unions—demonstrated that the Department of Education and the OPM "likely violated the Privacy Act by disclosing personal information to DOGE affiliates without consent," as reported by Telemundo40 a few months ago. The access is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration and DOGE to collect data from multiple federal agencies—including Medicare, the IRS, the SSA, and HUD—with the aim of ramping up deportations and excluding immigrants from social benefits. Some tactics reportedly include declaring living immigrants as deceased to pressure them into leaving the country. As The Washington Post reported after investigating the matter, "DOGE has frequently sought data originally provided for specific purposes—such as tax filing or housing assistance. The team's methods have alarmed legal and privacy experts, as well as federal employees, who note that the data DOGE is analyzing is typically accessible only to a select group of highly trained personnel." Legal and privacy experts have raised serious concerns over the lack of oversight and the risks posed by granting access to such sensitive data—especially for immigrants who have followed legal immigration procedures. If you are an immigrant or know someone at risk of deportation, contact us for assistance at 719-602-4477.

Recently, several cases have been reported in which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sent communications to citizens and legal residents, urging them to leave the country or face potential legal action. Among the various cases, one that has drawn particular attention is that of Nicole Micheroni, an immigration attorney born in the U.S., who received an email from DHS dated April 11, informing her that she must leave the country within seven days. The message, titled "Notice of Parole Termination," stated that her parole had been revoked. Although DHS later suggested that the email may have been sent in error due to her email address being associated with clients, the situation reveals a concerning practice. This incident indicates that DHS may be sending intimidating mass emails intended to pressure recipients to leave the country. According to the website Nbcboston , “In a statement, a senior official from the Department of Homeland Security told NBC10 Boston that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is issuing parole termination notices to individuals who do not have legal status to remain in the country, and that 'CBP used the known email addresses of the foreign nationals to send the notifications. If a non-personal email was provided—such as one belonging to a U.S. citizen—it’s possible that the notifications were sent to unintended recipients. CBP is monitoring the communications and will address any issues on a case-by-case basis.’” These actions reflect an escalation in immigration policies under the Trump administration, affecting not only immigrants but also U.S. citizens and legal residents. If you need legal assistance or additional information on immigration matters, contact us to schedule an appointment at (719) 602-4477.

Jeanette Vizguerra, a prominent immigrant and labor rights activist in Colorado, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She is currently being held in an ICE facility in Aurora, Colorado, awaiting deportation to Mexico. ICE claims that Vizguerra entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 1997 and has a final deportation order. However, her legal team challenges the validity of this order, arguing that it was reinstated incorrectly and that she has received due process. A hearing is scheduled for March 28, 2025, in which U.S. District Judge Nina Wang will consider these arguments and decide on her potential release. This arrest is particularly significant, as Vizguerra’s case gained national attention during the previous Trump administration. She became known as an immigrant rights activist after, in 2017, to avoid deportation, she moved into a church basement with her three children. Later, she was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2017. On March 17, Vizguerra was arrested by ICE while on a break from her job at Target (a store that, by the way, has openly declared itself non-protective of immigrants). According to reports, during the arrest, officials told her, "We finally have you." This statement has been interpreted by many as a clear example of persecution toward activists. According to The New York Times, "Her detention has already sparked backlash from Colorado’s Democratic politicians and immigrant rights advocates, who accused the Trump administration of attempting to silence critics of its harsh immigration policies." The New York Times quoted Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, who condemned the arrest of Ms. Vizguerra as "a Putin-style persecution of political dissidents," which ensnared a working-class mother who had dedicated her life to helping other undocumented immigrants. “We don’t see this as immigration law enforcement,” he said in an interview. “This is about targeting political opponents and using the power of the government to punish them.” Colorado Democratic Senator Michael Bennet called Ms. Vizguerra a "pillar of her community" and urged U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to release her. An ICE spokesperson confirmed her arrest to The Guardian, stating that Vizguerra was "arrested without incident" on Monday and would "remain in ICE custody pending her deportation from the United States." The spokesperson described Vizguerra as “a convicted criminal alien from Mexico who has a final deportation order issued by a federal immigration judge” and stated that she “illegally entered the United States near El Paso, Texas, on December 24, 1997, and has received due process in a U.S. immigration court.” However, on Tuesday, Vizguerra's attorneys filed a writ of habeas corpus with the court, urging ICE to bring Vizguerra before the court to determine if her detention is legal. “Vizguerra has fought her own deportation since 2009 while advocating for immigrant rights, labor protections, and family unity,” they stated in a release from the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. In conclusion, this particular case draws attention not only because Vizguerra was arrested, but also because it is another concerning case related to activists being repressed for being openly against the policies of the Trump administration. At Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to fight for immigrant rights. If you have any questions or need advice on immigration matters, don’t hesitate to contact us.

Recently, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, has had public disagreements with President Donald Trump. The conflict arose after District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In response, Trump called Judge Boasberg a "radical left-wing lunatic" and demanded his removal. This request was rejected by Chief Justice Roberts, who emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements with judicial decisions and stressed the importance of the appeals process. This situation highlights the tensions between the executive and judicial branches, especially when the impartiality or integrity of the judicial system is questioned. The confrontation has been seen as an institutional clash, with the Chief Justice openly opposing the political pressures exerted by former President Trump, reaffirming the importance of judicial independence. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, "Roberts' recent remarks are not the first time he has rebuked politicians for undermining the judiciary. In 2018, after Trump attacked what he called an 'Obama judge' for ruling against him in a separate immigration case, Roberts issued a statement defending the courts." "We don’t have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said at the time. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who make their best efforts to dispense fair justice to those who appear before them." To this, Trump responded: "Sorry, Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do in fact have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a very different point of view from the people responsible for the safety of our country." As The Wall Street Journal explains in one of its articles: "Threats of impeachment against district judges over preliminary orders issued at the start of litigation are virtually unheard of—and even less so when coming from the president. To remove a judge, the House would have to approve articles of impeachment, and the Senate, after a trial, would need to convict by a two-thirds vote. Although the likelihood of this happening is low, Roberts and other judges have warned that the inflammatory rhetoric of political leaders can lead to the intimidation of judges and even threats to their safety and that of their families." Meanwhile, the court of appeals has not made any decision regarding the removal of Boasberg, and he continues to carry out his duties, such as requesting more information from the government about recent deportation flights. The government continues to evade this request, providing little information while vehemently insisting on Boasberg's removal. If you have any questions about how this could affect your immigration case, please don't hesitate to contact us.

The administration of President Donald Trump has taken measures to strengthen policies on the detention of migrant families, including reopening contracts with private prison companies to operate detention centers for this group. According to reports collected by Telemundo, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is in the process of soliciting proposals from private prison companies to restart detention centers specifically for migrant families. This initiative aims to increase detention capacity and improve living conditions for detained migrant families. As explained by Telemundo in one of its articles, "The governments of former President Barack Obama and the first term of Trump detained parents with their children, but former President Joe Biden ended that practice in early 2021. Under the terms of a 1997 court agreement, ICE is prohibited from holding families with children in regular detention centers, and they must be detained for less than 21 days." Regarding the same issue, The Wall Street Journal commented, “The private prison industry, represented by companies such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, has shown active interest in these contracts. These companies are expanding their capacities and hiring additional staff in anticipation of an increase in demand for detention beds under Trump’s immigration policies. For example, GEO Group plans to increase its bed capacity from 13,500 to more than 31,000, while CoreCivic aims to expand its capacity to 25,000 beds, including the possibility of detaining families and unaccompanied minors.” "Furthermore, it has been reported that the Trump administration is considering using defense funds to allow civilian companies to quickly expand temporary detention centers, such as those housing migrant families. This strategy seeks to increase detention capacity without the need to build new facilities." (Telemundo) In summary, the Trump administration is strengthening migrant family detention policies by reopening contracts with private prison companies, expanding detention capacity, and using defense funds to improve and expand existing facilities. These measures aim to address the increase in the number of migrants and reinforce the government’s immigration policies. The website Immigrants' List aptly states, “This is a prime example of Donald Trump's performative immigration policy, reflecting his desire to create a spectacle rather than address the complexities of our immigration system in a fair and humane manner. Trump is using immigration as a political theater tool to create fear, control, and division. Moreover, Trump's family detention policy is designed to fill the pockets of private prisons, contributing to the expansion of the industrial prison complex, all at the expense of humanity and justice. By intensifying detention and deportation efforts, the Trump administration contributed to the growing reliance on private contractors to manage immigrant detention centers. This has been a key way in which for-profit prison companies like CoreCivic have benefited from the incarceration of immigrant families." As for us, PIKES PEAK IMMIGRATION, we remain committed to fighting for immigrants' rights and helping families stay united. Call us if you need advice on immigration matters.

As part of the measures taken by the administration of Donald Trump, and as explained in an article published on WLRN.COM, the 2011 policy limiting the actions of immigration agents in "sensitive areas," such as churches, hospitals, and schools, was revoked. This decision was part of Trump’s campaign promises to tighten policies against undocumented immigrants. However, despite the policy change, immigration authorities can only access public areas of hospitals without a court order, while entry into private areas requires a warrant. WLRN.COM mentions in its article that hospitals in South Florida, such as those operated by HCA Healthcare and Jackson Health System, continue to comply with federal regulations that require emergency medical care to be provided to all individuals, regardless of their immigration status. "We provide care to all patients who come to our facilities in accordance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)," said a spokesperson for HCA Healthcare's East Florida division, which operates 14 hospitals in South Florida. EMTALA is a federal regulation that mandates hospitals to provide emergency medical services to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, including undocumented immigrants. WLRN.COM recently interviewed Paul Chavez, director of litigation for Americans for Immigrant Justice, who stated, "Often, ICE shows up at locations with a notice stating that a search warrant is required. This does not give them any authority to search what would otherwise be private areas. Therefore, the designated person must be very careful to ensure that what they see is a real search warrant," he said. This is a brief overview of the daily challenges immigrants and the institutions that serve them face to ensure their rights are not denied. In contrast, while immigrant advocates carefully study each situation to ensure due process, efforts and intentions to make the path increasingly difficult for those living in the country illegally persist. In the state of Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and legislators are working hard to implement new projects and enforce those already in place. Among these projects are proposals such as making it a state crime to enter Florida without legal authorization. Another measure supported by DeSantis would require the preventive detention of individuals who are in the country without legal authorization and are accused of serious crimes. New powers would allow Florida police to interrogate and arrest suspected undocumented immigrants. Similarly, the proposed bill would increase criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes and establish the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. The measure would also repeal a state law that allows Florida students who lack legal immigration status to qualify for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. As evident, defending immigrants, especially those who are undocumented, has become an even greater challenge since Trump took office. However, at PIKES PEAK IMMIGRATION , we continue working diligently to keep families united.