A Systematic Transformation: Federal Courts Under New Management
A quiet revolution is unfolding within America’s immigration court system, one that could fundamentally reshape how the nation handles asylum cases and deportation proceedings for years to come. Behind closed doors and through terse email notifications, a sweeping reorganization is taking place that legal experts describe as unprecedented in its scope and apparent ideological consistency. The changes signal a dramatic shift in judicial philosophy that extends far beyond individual personnel decisions, potentially altering the very foundation of how immigration justice operates in America’s most liberal strongholds.
The San Francisco Purge: Six Judges and Counting
The Justice Department’s systematic removal of immigration judges has reached startling proportions in San Francisco, where six adjudicators have been dismissed since President Donald Trump returned to office. The latest casualty, Judge Shira Levine, received her termination notice this week without explanation—a pattern that has become disturbingly familiar to court observers and legal advocates throughout the Bay Area.
Judge Levine, who had served on the immigration court since her October 2021 appointment, joins a growing roster of dismissed judges whose removals appear to follow a clear pattern. Her dismissal came without the courtesy of an explanation, leaving colleagues and the legal community to speculate about the criteria being used to determine which judges remain and which face sudden termination.
Milli Atkinson, who leads the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Bar Association of San Francisco, noted that while Levine received no official reason for her removal, the decision didn’t surprise those familiar with the broader pattern of dismissals. This lack of transparency has become a hallmark of the current administration’s approach to immigration court restructuring.
The systematic nature of these removals became particularly evident with the earlier dismissals of Judges Chloe Dillon and Elisa Brasil, both of whom held two of the court’s highest asylum approval rates according to data from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Their removals sent shockwaves through the legal community and established the apparent criteria for future dismissals.
Judge Dillon’s experience exemplifies the abrupt and impersonal nature of these terminations. She discovered her firing through a three-sentence email on August 22, learning of her dismissal after returning to her office from conducting a multi-year asylum hearing where she had already indicated her intended ruling and hoped to issue a decision that same day.
The stark reality of her situation became immediately apparent as Dillon spent just 90 minutes gathering personal belongings, returning federal property, and attempting to transfer responsibility for her massive 6,000-case docket—all without knowing who would assume responsibility for these pending cases. This hasty transition raises serious questions about case continuity and the welfare of asylum seekers whose fates hang in the balance.
The Numbers Tell a Story: Approval Rates as Political Targets
The statistical profile of dismissed judges reveals a troubling pattern that suggests ideological rather than performance-based criteria are driving these personnel decisions. Between fiscal years 2019 and 2024, Judge Levine approved asylum requests in more than 97% of her cases, while Judge Dillon granted asylum in 96.5% of cases that came before her bench.
These approval rates stand in stark contrast to national averages, which hover around 50% during the same period and dipped below 36% as of last October according to TRAC data. However, these disparities reflect more than individual judicial philosophy—they illuminate the complex factors that influence asylum outcomes across different jurisdictions and court systems.
Legal experts emphasize that San Francisco’s higher approval rates partially reflect the reality that asylum seekers in the Bay Area are significantly more likely to have skilled legal representation compared to their counterparts in other regions. The presence of experienced immigration attorneys, extensive pro bono networks, and well-established legal aid organizations creates an environment where asylum cases are more thoroughly prepared and effectively presented.
Additionally, the types of cases typically heard in San Francisco immigration court often involve different circumstances and legal standards than those encountered in border courts or detention centers, where rapid processing and limited representation create vastly different dynamics. These systemic differences make direct numerical comparisons between courts problematic and potentially misleading.
Nevertheless, the consistent targeting of judges with above-average approval rates suggests that statistical outcomes, rather than legal competence or judicial temperament, have become the primary factor in retention decisions. This approach represents a fundamental shift toward results-oriented judicial management that prioritizes specific outcomes over independent decision-making.
Professional Backgrounds Under Scrutiny: Advocacy Experience as Liability
The professional histories of dismissed judges reveal another concerning pattern in the Justice Department’s selection criteria. Five of the six terminated judges had spent significant portions of their careers representing immigrants in various capacities, suggesting that advocacy experience has become a disqualifying factor rather than valuable preparation for judicial service.
Former San Francisco immigration judge Dana Leigh Marks characterized the removals as “completely ideologically based,” noting that the Justice Department appears to be making assumptions about judicial performance based on attorneys’ previous career choices rather than their actual conduct on the bench.
“It appears to be very results-oriented, targeted towards individuals who think more independently and are willing to listen to both sides when a case is presented to them rather than just accepting government assertions,” Marks explained, highlighting how previous advocacy experience might actually enhance rather than compromise judicial fairness.
Judge Brasil’s background exemplifies this troubling trend. Before her May 2023 appointment, she practiced immigration law in the private sector, frequently handling pro bono cases for vulnerable clients who couldn’t afford representation. This experience provided her with intimate knowledge of immigration law complexities and the human stakes involved in asylum decisions—qualifications that would traditionally be viewed as assets for judicial service.
Similarly, Judge Levine brought more than five years of experience with Centro Legal de la Raza and the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area, organizations renowned for their expertise in immigration law and commitment to due process. Her background included direct experience with the challenges facing asylum seekers and the legal frameworks designed to protect them.
Judge Dillon’s previous role as an attorney advisor at Los Angeles’ immigration court provided her with insider knowledge of court operations and case management, while another dismissed judge, Jami Vigil, contributed eight years of experience as court-appointed counsel for immigrant families—a role that required navigating complex legal procedures while advocating for society’s most vulnerable populations.
The Retained: Prosecutorial Experience as Preferred Qualification
In stark contrast to the systematic removal of judges with advocacy backgrounds, those who advanced through prosecutorial roles within the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division have largely retained their positions. This pattern suggests that previous experience arguing for deportations and opposing asylum claims has become the preferred qualification for immigration judicial service.
The retention of prosecution-oriented judges creates a fundamental imbalance in judicial perspective that could significantly impact case outcomes across the immigration court system. While prosecutorial experience provides valuable insights into government enforcement priorities and legal strategies, the systematic exclusion of defense-oriented perspectives eliminates crucial balance in judicial decision-making.
This selective retention raises questions about the independence of immigration courts and their ability to serve as neutral arbiters in cases where the government is effectively one of the parties. When judges are selected primarily based on their alignment with enforcement priorities rather than their commitment to fair and impartial application of law, the entire judicial process becomes compromised.
The implications extend beyond individual case outcomes to encompass fundamental questions about due process and equal treatment under law. Immigration courts are intended to provide fair hearings where asylum seekers can present their cases and receive impartial consideration of their claims. The systematic selection of judges based on their likelihood to deny asylum fundamentally undermines this purpose.
Institutional Changes: Lowering Standards While Expanding Capacity
The Justice Department’s approach to immigration court transformation extends beyond personnel changes to encompass fundamental alterations in qualification requirements and staffing sources. In August, the department eliminated the requirement that temporary immigration judges possess prior experience in immigration law—a decision that represents a dramatic departure from traditional judicial qualification standards.
This policy change occurred just one week before the federal government authorized 600 military lawyers to serve in immigration judicial roles, creating a direct pipeline for attorneys whose primary experience involves military law rather than the complex civilian legal frameworks governing asylum and immigration. While military attorneys possess legal training and courtroom experience, their background in military justice systems may not adequately prepare them for the nuanced civilian legal standards that govern immigration proceedings.
The timing of these changes suggests a coordinated effort to rapidly expand court capacity while simultaneously reducing qualification barriers that might limit the pool of available judges. This approach prioritizes speed and volume over expertise and experience, potentially compromising the quality of judicial decision-making in cases that often determine life-or-death outcomes for asylum seekers.
Military attorneys operate within command structures and legal frameworks that differ significantly from civilian courts, where judicial independence and individual case consideration are paramount. The transition from military to civilian judicial roles requires significant adjustment in approach, methodology, and legal philosophy that may not occur quickly enough to ensure fair and competent case handling.
The Broader Political Context: Mass Deportation as Policy Priority
These judicial changes occur within the broader context of President Trump’s campaign promise to implement mass deportation policies, a platform that contributed significantly to his electoral victory over former Vice President Kamala Harris. The systematic restructuring of immigration courts appears designed to support these enforcement priorities by ensuring that judicial outcomes align with administrative goals.
The political mandate for increased deportations creates pressure throughout the immigration system to process cases more quickly and with greater emphasis on removal rather than protection. This pressure inevitably influences judicial selection criteria, court procedures, and case management approaches in ways that may compromise individual rights and due process protections.
Mass deportation policies require institutional support from immigration courts willing to process large volumes of cases with minimal delay and maximum removal rates. The current pattern of judicial dismissals and appointments suggests a systematic effort to align court personnel with these enforcement objectives, regardless of legal merit or individual circumstances.
Case Management Crisis: 6,000 Cases in Limbo
The abrupt nature of judicial dismissals has created a significant case management crisis, particularly evident in Judge Dillon’s experience of having to hastily transfer responsibility for 6,000 pending cases without knowing who would assume oversight. This massive caseload represents thousands of individuals whose asylum claims, deportation proceedings, and other immigration matters now face uncertain futures.
The continuity problems created by sudden judicial changes extend beyond mere administrative inconvenience to encompass serious due process concerns. Asylum seekers who have built cases around specific judges’ approaches, legal interpretations, and procedural preferences now face the prospect of starting over with new adjudicators who may have entirely different perspectives and priorities.
Complex asylum cases often develop over months or years, with judges becoming familiar with intricate factual details, legal precedents, and individual circumstances that influence final decisions. When these cases are suddenly transferred to new judges, much of this accumulated knowledge and context is lost, potentially compromising the quality and fairness of final determinations.
Legal Community Response: Unprecedented Ideological Targeting
The legal community’s response to these systematic dismissals reflects deep concern about the precedent being established for judicial independence and professional integrity within the immigration court system. Legal observers note that while immigration judges serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General, the current pattern of removals appears to target specific ideological perspectives rather than addressing performance issues or misconduct.
Professional organizations, bar associations, and legal advocacy groups have expressed alarm about the implications of selecting judges based on their statistical outcomes rather than their legal competence, ethical conduct, or commitment to due process. This approach threatens to transform immigration courts from judicial bodies into administrative processing centers designed to produce predetermined outcomes.
The targeting of judges with advocacy backgrounds sends a chilling message to the broader legal community about the risks associated with immigration defense work and public interest law. When previous experience representing vulnerable populations becomes a disqualifying factor for judicial service, the legal profession loses valuable perspectives and expertise that enhance the quality of justice.
Looking Forward: The New Immigration Court Landscape
The systematic transformation of San Francisco’s immigration court represents a microcosm of broader changes occurring throughout the national immigration court system. As the administration continues implementing its mass deportation agenda, similar patterns of judicial dismissals and replacements are likely to emerge in other jurisdictions, particularly those with historically higher asylum approval rates.
The long-term implications of these changes extend beyond immediate case outcomes to encompass fundamental questions about the role of immigration courts in American democracy. When judicial selection prioritizes alignment with enforcement priorities over legal expertise and independent judgment, the courts risk becoming mere administrative extensions of executive branch policy rather than neutral arbiters of law.
The success or failure of this institutional transformation will ultimately be measured not just in deportation statistics or court efficiency metrics, but in the broader impact on due process, legal consistency, and America’s commitment to providing fair hearings for those seeking protection from persecution and violence.
As the dust settles on this latest round of dismissals, the immigration legal community faces the challenge of adapting to a dramatically altered judicial landscape while continuing to advocate for their clients within a system that appears increasingly hostile to their professional expertise and advocacy experience. The outcome of this transformation will shape immigration justice in America for years to come.
