The Trump administration on Thursday moved to give itself broader authority to appoint temporary immigration judges, relaxing longstanding eligibility rules for who can serve in those roles. The change, set to be issued as a final rule by the Justice Department’s EOIR (Executive Office for Immigration Review), would let the EOIR director designate any attorney to serve as a temporary immigration judge for six-month periods, with the possibility of extensions and no explicit cap on how many.
Previously, since 2014, the department allowed only former immigration judges, administrative law judges from other agencies, or Justice attorneys with at least 10 years of immigration-law experience to fill temporary immigration judge slots. EOIR now says those parameters were overly restrictive and that very few TIJs had been hired under the prior rules, noting the backlog could be addressed more effectively by broadening the pool.
Under the new rule, with the attorney general’s approval, the director could select any attorney to serve as a TIJ, sourced from Justice or other agencies or as newly hired “special government employees.” The agency says experience in immigration law is not always a reliable predictor of success as an IJ and that individuals from other federal components have performed well in the role.
EOIR contends the change brings TIJ hiring more in line with the standards used for permanent immigration judges. Critics, however, warn the shift could affect the impartiality of proceedings. Adriel Orozco, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, said the move may jeopardize the integrity of the immigration courts by prioritizing speed over due process and by potentially expanding the pool with judges aligned to certain political stances. Because TIJs will be renewed every six months, he added, there will be strong incentives to meet leadership expectations.
The policy comes as the backlog in immigration courts remains a major issue. The agency reports a steep drop in new cases arriving since President Trump took office and launched border crackdowns, but the backlog persists at about 3.7 million cases. Over the past decade, EOIR has expanded the number of permanent judges to roughly 700 to tackle the backlog but has lost more than 100 of them in the same period due to firings and incentivized departures.
In selecting TIJs, EOIR says it will prioritize applicants’ education and employment history, pointing to Supreme Court clerkships or involvement in high-salience, complex litigation as the kinds of experience it will seek. The director and the attorney general, however, retain discretion to consider other factors relevant to the appointment.
EOIR asserts that the previous qualification standards for TIJs made hiring prohibitively difficult, and notes that the agency had limited success filling TIJ roles since 2014. Opponents worry that widening the pool could strain training and oversight, though EOIR says TIJs will receive the same comprehensive training as permanent judges.
Proponents argue the change could help reduce the immigration court backlog more quickly by adding judges sooner, potentially speeding up decisions on asylum and other cases. They emphasize that TIJs will operate under the same oversight, training, and renewal requirements as other judges, and that the policy aims to balance the urgent need for more judicial capacity with the maintenance of standards.
Summary and outlook: If implemented effectively with robust training and ongoing accountability, the expanded TIJ pool could hasten case processing and lessen backlogs. At the same time, observers will be watching closely to see whether the approach preserves due process and judicial independence in immigration proceedings, particularly given the six-month renewal cadence and broader selection criteria. Potential voters and policymakers may weigh whether the new framework yields timely decisions without compromising fairness.