The Trump administration has announced plans to deploy hundreds of military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges, a move that has sparked controversy and criticism from the immigration community.
According to Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, “These DOD attorneys will augment existing resources to help further combat a backlog of cases by presiding over immigration hearings.”
The plan, approved by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, involves sending up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department, with the first group of 150 lawyers expected to be deployed “as soon as practicable”.
These lawyers will serve as immigration judges for 179 days initially. However, critics argue that military lawyers are not equipped to handle complex immigration cases.
Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, slammed the plan, saying, “Expecting fair decisions from judges unfamiliar with the law is absurd.
This reckless move guts due process and further undermines the integrity of our immigration court system.” Johnson likened the plan to “having a cardiologist do a hip replacement”, highlighting the lack of expertise military lawyers have in immigration law.
This move is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to involve the military in domestic affairs, including immigration enforcement. The administration has been criticized for its handling of immigration, with many arguing that it undermines the rule of law and due process.
The deployment of military lawyers comes amid a larger crackdown on undocumented immigration by the Trump administration.
This includes the growing role of troops patrolling the US-Mexico border, National Guard members being sent into US cities to support immigration enforcement efforts, detaining people at military bases in advance of deportation, and using military aircraft to carry out deportations.
In a recent court ruling, a US judge declared that the Trump administration had “wilfully” violated federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in early June.
This decision highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding the administration’s immigration policies and their impact on communities across the US.
In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors”, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed criticism of military lawyers, stating that most “spend more time prosecuting our troops than putting away bad guys”. This raises questions about the suitability of military lawyers for roles in immigration courts.
The Trump administration has announced plans to deploy hundreds of military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges, aiming to reduce the growing backlog of cases.
These lawyers, from the Department of Defense, will augment existing resources to manage the increasing number of cases.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell explained that this initiative is part of President Trump’s broader immigration strategy to reduce undocumented migrant crossings.
Critics argue that military lawyers lack the necessary training and expertise to handle complex immigration cases, which may lead to mistakes or wrongful deportations.
Immigration law is distinct from military law, and the judges will need to understand the nuances of immigration court proceedings.
For instance, deciding asylum cases requires a deep understanding of international law, human rights, and the specific circumstances of each case.
The military lawyers will serve as executive branch employees, managing immigration rulings at the state level, for an initial term of 179 days.
This move has sparked debate over due process, legal standards, and the role of states in immigration enforcement. Governor Ron DeSantis’s similar proposal in Florida has also raised questions about the potential impact on immigrants, families, and local economies.
If approved, this plan could set a precedent for other states to follow, potentially reshaping immigration enforcement nationwide.
The plan is likely to face court challenges, with critics arguing that current law puts all immigration court power in federal hands. Supporters argue that states should step in, especially if federal action is deemed too slow or insufficient.
The outcome will depend on the response from the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump administration. Legal experts expect long delays in implementing the plan, and the potential for controversy and debate over the role of military lawyers in immigration courts.
Simply wish to say your article is as amazing The clearness in your post is just nice and i could assume youre an expert on this subject Well with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post Thanks a million and please carry on the gratifying work
Very many thanks for your heartwarming comments. We look forward to serving you more.