E.g., 06/08/2026
E.g., 06/08/2026
Breaking the Cycle of Dysfunction at the U.S. Immigration Courts

The immigration courts have long faced high caseloads, but the backlog has seen considerable growth in recent years. With nearly 3.8 million pending deportation cases as of mid-2025, delays in the courts hamper core functions of the broader U.S. immigration system—including leaving individuals who are in need of protection waiting years for a decision in their asylum case, while those who are ineligible are not ordered removed in a timely manner.

To understand how the courts reached this point, this policy brief provides an overview of policies under the Biden administration and early actions during the second Trump term. Many of the most pressing issues have been the focus, in different ways and to different extents, of executive branch actions and proposed legislation, but these efforts have failed to produce a well-functioning immigration court system.

The brief concludes by highlighting concrete administrative and legislative actions that could transform the immigration courts, making proceedings fairer and more efficient and enabling judges to focus on high-priority cases—those affecting national security and public safety.

Table of Contents 

1  Introduction

2  Record Border Arrivals Overwhelm the Courts under Biden
A. More Asylum Applications Than Ever Before
B. Backlog Mitigation: Asylum Restrictions and Prosecutorial Discretion

3  Trump 2.0: Avoiding the Courts and Speeding up Deportations
A. The Alien Enemies Act, Expedited Removal, and Arrests at the Courts
B. Firing Immigration Judges and Halting Legal Advice Services
C. Record Number of Asylum Cases Poses Ongoing Challenges

4 Recent Attempts at Legislative Reform

5 Recommendations for Transformation
A. Reprogram Resources to Better Meet System Needs
B. Direct Asylum Officers to Adjudicate All Incoming Asylum Cases
C. Prioritize Cases that Pose National Security or Public Safety Threats
D. Modernize Courts’ Operations and Use of Technology
E. Provide Access to Legal Advice and Representation

6  Conclusion