We’ve Hit a Brick Wall Addressing Judicial Misconduct in Immigration Court

Since the start of this administration approximately 100 immigration judges have been terminated, and that has understandably garnered a significant amount of media coverage. But the administration has eroded the integrity of our immigration court system in other ways as well – including by reversing improvements in holding immigration judges accountable for misconduct.

For decades, the Justice Department had struggled with how to address allegations of misconduct by immigration judges.These judges handle cases of extraordinary consequence. Their decisions on asylum claims can permanently separate families or determine life-or-death outcomes. It’s imperative that we have judges who don’t violate workplace rules and make judicial decisions based solely on the facts and the law, and that we hold accountable those who fall below that standard.

According to media reports, stakeholders have made reports of, for example: an immigration judge threatening to sic his dog on a juvenile; inappropriate, sexually charged language in and out of the courtroom; and immigration judges deporting U.S. citizens and failing to hold timely bond hearings. The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General found – just last year – that an immigration judge improperly used their email and then engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate, and another immigration judge made inappropriate comments about a respondent’s mental state and sexual orientation.

Parties to a case have raised frivolous allegations of misconduct to try to get rid of a judge they believe will not rule their way, while others file legitimate claims and are frustrated by the lack of transparency that the Justice Department has taken their allegations seriously.

Getting that balance right has been difficult, but in 2024 the Justice Department implemented a new process that was a dramatic improvement. However, those judicial misconduct reforms were shut down at the start of this administration and replaced with a process that provides less accountability for judges and even less transparency for external stakeholders.

This retreat comes at a time when the administration is introducing hundreds of military attorneys without immigration experience to serve as temporary immigration judges. Due to lack of training and expertise in immigration law, the potential for misconduct could not be higher.

The Old Complaint Process

Almost 20 years ago, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in response to widespread criticism of immigration judges within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), issued directives to standardize intake procedures for complaints of inappropriate conduct by immigration judges, create a clearance process to define the roles of who handles any particular complaint, and ensure a timely and proportionate response.

Based on those directives, EOIR attempted to strengthen its policies and procedures related to allegations of immigration judicial misconduct.

Those efforts had mixed success.

Before an overhaul in 2024, EOIR’s approach to allegations of judicial misconduct was to place an EOIR staff attorney, an assistant chief immigration judge, or a manager from EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) in charge of the intake and processing of all complaints of misconduct lodged against an immigration judge. This individual would then “triage” or summarize the complaint as best as possible and then forward it to the judge’s supervisor. The supervisor would then investigate the complaint, solicit a response from the judge if the complaint was not dismissible on its face, and then, if the allegations were substantiated, work with the supervisor’s own managers and EOIR’s Office of General Counsel to determine what, if any, sanctions should be imposed.

You can imagine the problems with this approach. The outcome was largely based on a judge’s supervisor - someone who may lack the training, skills, and desire to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. Similar allegations of misconduct would result in a wide range of actions.

In addition, due to strict federal privacy laws, external stakeholders (including the Department of Homeland Security) received hardly any information on whether their allegations of misconduct were investigated and what the results of those investigations were.

That lack of transparency - combined with the disparate outcomes - fostered distrust in the process.

The 2024 Overhaul

In 2024, EOIR made significant structural improvements to hold judges more accountable while still ensuring they were not burdened by frivolous claims. The changes adopted best practices for handling workplace and judicial misconduct.

First, EOIR created a senior position – above the immigration judge level but outside the chain of command – to head a new Judicial Conduct and Professionalism Unit (JCPU). The senior leader designation signaled to both internal and external stakeholders that JCPU’s mission was a significant priority, and it enhanced EOIR’s coordination with the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of Inspector General, as well as the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

This new position ensured that someone outside the supervisory chain of the immigration court system could implement and carry out a uniform review process. They oversaw the processing and investigation of complaints, assisted managing officials with implementing uniform discipline, and provided robust training to reduce allegations of misconduct.

I held this position from when it was first created in June 2024 until January 20, 2025, when I was pushed out.

JCPU also created new standard operating procedures for processing complaints toward improving transparency. To reduce the filing of frivolous complaints, JCPU would not docket complaints that simply memorialized a party’s dissatisfaction with the judge’s ruling or complaints where JCPU could not identify any misconduct based upon the records available to EOIR.

The dismissal of complaints at the initial filing and pre-docketing stage was an important step toward transparency because complainants would have, over time, seen what types of complaints were docketed for investigation and which were dismissed at the earliest stage.

This data, combined with the annual reports on the dispositions of docketed judicial complaints, would have shown the types of conduct EOIR deemed necessary for investigation and disciplinary action while still protecting the privacy of individuals consistent with federal law. Additionally, senior DOJ and EOIR leadership had made plain to me that they expected the Principal Counsel/Senior Leader to engage with external stakeholders on JCPU issues where possible.

For allegations of serious misconduct, JCPU would recommend that a judge not hear cases during the process, and it would provide management officials with factual findings and consult with them to ensure fair and uniform outcomes. Finally, JCPU developed a training program for judges whose misconduct was confirmed but their sanction did not require removal from federal service.

Opaque Process Without Accountability

All of this came to a sudden halt with the new administration.

I was transferred away from EOIR, and the senior leader position I held disappeared. Now, no one outside of the department knows who is running the JCPU or what procedures it is using to process, investigate and administer sanctions for misconduct cases. The workings of JCPU seem more closed off than ever and appear once again to be susceptible to the individual opinions and effort put forth by the investigating manager.

The current JCPU process’s opaque nature and the drastic reduction in its prominence are even more troubling as the current administration pivots to dramatically increasing the immigration judge ranks through temporary appointments from the military.

Without clear leadership and sufficient resources, it is unlikely that allegations of misconduct — even of a serious nature — could be processed, investigated, and adjudicated prior to the temporary judge’s departure from EOIR.

Because an immigration judge’s departure from EOIR terminates the investigation of an allegation or the imposition of discipline, the brief tenure could create a culture where acts of judicial misconduct can be committed with impunity.

That culture will only cause those who work in the immigration court system to lose trust in the capabilities, impartiality, and accountability of our immigration judges.

Wynne P. Kelly is a founding partner of Emeriti Law and left the Department of Justice in September 2025 after 17 years. Wynne was the senior leader within the Executive Office for Immigration Review in charge of Judicial Conduct and Professionalism until he was reassigned to the Office of the Associate Attorney General on January 20, 2025, to the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group, which was later revealed to be a rubber room. Wynne also served as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge managing the Sterling, Virginia Immigration Court, and as an Immigration Judge at the Arlington and Annandale Immigration Courts. Prior to joining EOIR, Wynne was a civil Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia for 11 years.