Chelmsford, Massachusetts — At least two immigration judges from Massachusetts are among more than a dozen judges dismissed across the nation recently, raising concerns about political interference and the independence of immigration courts. One of the fired judges, George Pappas, contends that such firings are symptomatic of a troubling trend threatening the integrity of judicial processes in the U.S.
Pappas, who served until this week at the Chelmsford Immigration Court, stated he was let go during his two-year probation without clear reasoning. He expressed fears that his termination is politically motivated, influenced by partisanship that he believes seeks to compromise judicial neutrality. “I was told to rule in a certain way which violates my judicial neutrality,” Pappas explained.
His departure is part of a broader pattern, as he is one of 17 judges nationwide terminated in recent weeks. This wave of dismissals has led to heightened scrutiny regarding the role of the Trump administration in reshaping immigration courts. Pappas claimed, “The attorney general and the administration are looking to target immigration courts. They want to create a body of political hacks to replace impartial judges.”
The Chelmsford court now has only seven judges, down from 18, amid a significant backlog of over 3.5 million immigration cases nationwide. The recent firings have sparked serious concerns about the capacity of the courts to manage this growing workload. Kerry Doyle, another recently dismissed judge, shared her alarm over the rapid changes, stating, “This ongoing sort of massacre of immigration courts has got to stop.”
Doyle’s abrupt firing occurred just two months after she began her duties. She criticized the political motivations behind these actions, fearing they are intended to undermine the judicial system. “It seems like they really just want to bring the immigration courts to its knees,” she said.
Ila Deiss, who served eight years as an immigration judge in California, echoed these sentiments, stating she felt targeted for granting asylum at a higher rate than her peers. “We just all of a sudden become political pawns,” Deiss remarked, highlighting the pressure to conform to directives on rulings.
The current climate of dismissals comes as the administration intensifies immigration enforcement, resulting in an influx of cases that strain already overburdened courts. Pappas disclosed that he faced pressure regarding specific rulings while ICE agents were present in the courthouse, adding to the challenges judges face in upholding their duties.
Matthew Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, articulated the broader implications of these firings, warning that they threaten due process for undocumented individuals. “If they can do it to undocumented workers, they can do it to anybody,” Biggs stated.
Pappas raised constitutional concerns, underscoring the necessity for fair hearings in immigration proceedings. “This government has turned the Department of Justice into the Department of Injustice,” he argued, reflecting on the ramifications of politicized judicial appointments.
Amid these dramatic shifts, the onboarding and probation process for new immigration judges can last up to two years, raising questions about the future efficiency and impartiality of the courts.
The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review has yet to publicly comment on the recent firings or their implications for the judiciary. As the landscape of immigration courts continues to evolve, former judges and legal advocates remain vigilant about the potential impacts on individuals navigating the immigration system.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.