The U.S. immigration adjudication system has deep roots in the nation’s efforts to regulate borders while upholding principles of fairness and due process. Federal control over immigration began in earnest with the Immigration Act of 1891, which established the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration under the Treasury Department and introduced formal inspection processes at ports of entry, such as Ellis Island, where immigrants faced questioning on admissibility.[1] Boards of Special Inquiry, comprised of immigration inspectors, were created to decide exclusion and deportation cases, with appeals routed to the Superintendent and ultimately the Secretary of the Treasury.[2] This early framework raised concerns about due process, as enforcement and adjudication roles often overlapped.[3] For more on similar purges in other courts, see our article on the New York EOIR firings. 

As immigration laws evolved, so did the administrative structure. The Immigration Act of 1917 expanded grounds for exclusion and deportation, while the 1921 and 1924 acts introduced national origins quotas, limiting entries and sparking a rise in illegal crossings and appeals.[4] To manage this, the Secretary of Labor established a Board of Review in the 1920s to handle appeals, which later became the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in 1940 after the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred to the Department of Justice.[5] The landmark Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 consolidated laws, replacing Boards of Special Inquiry with special inquiry officers to conduct deportation hearings.[6] By 1973, these officers were redesignated as immigration judges, emphasizing their judicial role in robes and formal proceedings.[7] 

The modern system took shape in 1983 with the creation of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the DOJ, separating adjudication from INS enforcement functions to promote impartiality.[8] Today, EOIR oversees about 74 immigration courts nationwide, with over 700 judges handling removal cases—civil proceedings where noncitizens contest deportation and seek relief like asylum.[9] However, the system’s placement under the executive branch has long sparked debates about independence, as judges are appointed by the Attorney General and influenced by policy shifts.[10] Persistent challenges include massive backlogs, now exceeding 3.5 million cases nationally as of late 2025, driven by resource constraints and fluctuating enforcement priorities.[11] While some courts close, others expand—read about the new Baton Rouge immigration court. 

In this fraught landscape, the announced closure of San Francisco’s primary immigration court at 100 Montgomery Street marks a pivotal development, reflecting broader strains under the current administration. Set to shutter in January 2027, the facility’s lease will not be renewed, with staff slated to relocate to the federal immigration court in Concord as early as summer 2026.[12] The smaller EOIR location at 630 Sansome Street, owned by the federal government, is expected to remain operational.[13] Court personnel were informed of the plans on January 6, 2026, but EOIR has provided no official explanation for the decision, leaving questions about cost savings, operational efficiency, or alignment with deportation goals unanswered.[14] 

This closure comes amid a dramatic reduction in judicial staffing, triggered by a nationwide purge under the second Trump administration. In San Francisco, one of the busiest courts handling cases from Bakersfield to the Oregon border, the bench has dwindled from 21 judges in early 2025 to just four by the end of January 2026.[15] Thirteen judges were fired—many abruptly by email—and four more are retiring, with some attorneys describing the departures as pressured rather than voluntary.[16] Nationally, over 100 judges have been dismissed or prompted to leave since early 2025, reducing the total from about 700 to around 600, as the administration seeks to “restore integrity” by removing those perceived as lenient on asylum grants.[17] Dive deeper into recent rulings on the persecutor’s bar in asylum cases. 

The fallout is profound, exacerbating an already staggering backlog. San Francisco’s court alone faces over 120,000 pending cases, ranking among the nation’s top 10, while nearby Concord handles 60,000 and Sacramento 30,000.[18] With fired judges like Shuting Chen leaving behind dockets of up to 4,000 cases each, reassignments to the remaining few have led to widespread cancellations and rescheduling—some hearings delayed from weeks away to as far as 2029.[19] This not only prolongs uncertainty for asylum seekers but weakens their cases over time, as memories fade, witnesses become unavailable, or life circumstances change.[20] For insights into handling new vs. old asylum claims amid delays, explore this BIA analysis. For more on BIA decisions affecting vulnerable groups in removal cases. 

Stakeholders express alarm over the human toll. Attorneys report constant anxiety among clients, with over 100 of one lawyer’s cases rescheduled and several leading to detentions.[21] The administration’s push for expedited removals has intensified arrests outside courtrooms, with nearly 100 in San Francisco from May to November 2025, often following DHS motions to dismiss asylum claims for those in the U.S. less than two years.[22] One poignant example involves Daniela, a Colombian asylum seeker arrested after a routine hearing, detained in Honolulu, and ultimately deported to Colombia—separating her from her partner amid a surprise pregnancy—highlighting how court disruptions amplify family separations.[23] See how DHS uses international agreements to impact asylum claims and deportations. 

Efforts to fill vacancies include recruiting “deportation judges” and potentially deploying military lawyers with limited immigration expertise, raising concerns about fairness and due process.[24] Learn about the broader plan to deploy military lawyers as temporary immigration judges. Critics argue these moves undermine the system’s credibility, especially as national backlogs approach 3.8 million cases, with projections of further strain from mass deportation initiatives.[25] As San Francisco’s court consolidates operations, the closure underscores enduring tensions in a system designed for equity but challenged by political priorities, leaving thousands in limbo and prompting calls for reform to ensure independent, efficient adjudication. 

Endnotes

  1. Origins of the Federal Immigration Service
  2. Executive Office for Immigration Review | News and Information
  3. The Crisis in Immigration Adjudication
  4. The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)
  5. Courts in Name Only: Repairing America’s Immigration System
  6. MAJOR US IMMIGRATION LAWS, 1790 – PRESENT
  7. How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed through history
  8. Executive Office for Immigration Review | News and Information
  9. San Francisco Immigration Court
  10. Courts in Name Only: Repairing America’s Immigration System
  11. S.F. immigration main court to close following judges’ firings, retirements
  12. S.F. immigration court to close at year’s end, sources say
  13. S.F. immigration main court to close following judges’ firings, retirements
  14. S.F. immigration main court to close following judges’ firings, retirements
  15. San Francisco Immigration Court Down to Four Judges After New
  16. S.F. immigration court to close at year’s end, sources say
  17. Mass firing of judges in San Francisco has decimated the immigration court
  18. This is what happens when your immigration judge is fired
  19. This is what happens when your immigration judge is fired
  20. This is what happens when your immigration judge is fired
  21. This is what happens when your immigration judge is fired
  22. A Courthouse Arrest, a Surprise Pregnancy, and One Family’s
  23. A Courthouse Arrest, a Surprise Pregnancy, and One Family’s
  24. A Courthouse Arrest, a Surprise Pregnancy, and One Family’s
  25. With most judges now terminated, SF immigration court experiences more