SAN DIEGO (AP) — In a significant shift in immigration judicial management, the Trump administration has decided to utilize National Guard and Army Reserve lawyers as temporary immigration judges. This decision follows the recent termination of dozens of existing judges, a move that many legal experts fear will adversely impact immigration courts and the military justice system.
Training for the first group of these military lawyers is set to commence, with about 100 Army Reserve lawyers expected to step into these roles. Advocates and immigration reformers are expressing alarm, suggesting that this unexpected reliance on military personnel could exacerbate the already overwhelming backlog of immigration cases, which currently exceeds 3.4 million.
Both the Army and National Guard have stated a preference for volunteers for these assignments, but there are concerns about the adequacy of training and legal experience among the reservists being recruited. Historically, immigration judges have been required to have extensive legal backgrounds, including significant experience in immigration law. However, the current initiative does not mandate such qualifications, leading to fears that critical decisions affecting immigrant lives will be made by those lacking the necessary expertise.
Critics are particularly concerned that without sufficient legal training, these temporary judges will struggle to make informed decisions in complex immigration cases. Matt Biggs, president of a federal employee union representing immigration judges, highlighted the potential for increased appeals and more significant backlogs due to the inexperience of the new judges.
Democratic lawmakers have raised legal concerns regarding the plan, particularly regarding compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement roles. Advocates of immigrant rights fear that the administration’s choice to integrate military lawyers into the immigration system reflects an underlying intention to streamline deportation processes while dismissing the nuanced legal needs of individuals seeking refuge.
As the administration continues its aggressive stance on immigration and enforcement, the implications of this unprecedented shift in judicial responsibilities remain to be seen, raising critical questions about the future of immigration law in the U.S.
