Policy Change at the Department of Justice: Temporary Immigration Judges No Longer Required to Have Prior Immigration Law Experience
September 10, 2025
The announcement comes after more than 100 immigration judges were dismissed or reassigned in early 2025
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.
At Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to fight for the well-being and rights of immigrants.
If you need immigration advice, please do not hesitate to contact us at 719-602-4477.
Major Victory for Employers, Universities, and Highly Skilled Foreign Workers
Rising immigration enforcement, policy changes, and growing uncertainty are discouraging many lawful permanent residents from pursuing the protection and stability that U.S. citizenship is meant to provide.
New federal rule leaves thousands of work-authorized immigrants without commercial driver’s licenses
Various recent media outlets confirm that a new rule by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), under the U.S. Department of Transportation, prevents immigrants with work authorization—including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—from obtaining or maintaining commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), affecting hundreds of thousands of drivers. Reports from outlets such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, and CalMatters indicate that the measure is already causing the loss of licenses and jobs, as well as potential impacts on the supply chain. Meanwhile, labor and legal organizations have filed lawsuits, such as Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA , arguing that the rule is illegal, discriminatory, and severely harms the livelihoods of thousands of families. The administration implemented a rule that prevents asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients from obtaining or renewing CDLs. Lawsuits say it will “destroy livelihoods” A transportation-focused publication confirms the language used by plaintiffs: Attorneys stated that the rule “threatens to destroy the livelihoods” of thousands of drivers. It explains that asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients are excluded. Real impact: loss of licenses and jobs A recent CalMatters report shows that this is already happening: Thousands of immigrant truck drivers have already lost their licenses in California. Many have been left unemployed and in legal uncertainty. It is estimated that up to 61,000 could lose their licenses in that state alone. Economic and industry effects Driving schools report a sharp decline in student enrollment due to the new rules. Companies and analysts warn that the measure reduces the workforce and may increase costs. Implementation of the rule (key detail) Legal and regulatory sources confirm: The rule went into effect on March 16, 2026. It only allows CDLs for certain visa types (H-2A, H-2B, E-2). Other work-authorized statuses no longer qualify. Recently, The Guardian published an article analyzing the impact of this measure on driving schools. Start CDL, a driving school founded by immigrants Asyl Kushnir and Gene Moik, is facing possible closure due to a sharp decline in student enrollment following new restrictions implemented during the administration of Donald Trump. Enrollment dropped from nearly 100 students per month to just 25–30, seriously affecting revenue despite high demand for drivers. According to its owners, the changes have created confusion and reduced access for immigrants with work permits—such as asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—who previously saw trucking as a stable job opportunity. This serves as a small example of the different angles from which this new policy must be analyzed. In summary ✔️ The rule exists and is already in effect ✔️ It directly affects immigrants with work authorization ✔️ There are active lawsuits (such as the one you mentioned) ✔️ Media reports confirm real losses of jobs and licenses
Share On: