In a move that has raised significant legal and ethical concerns, the Trump administration has begun enlisting lawyers from the Army Reserve and National Guard to serve as temporary immigration judges. This initiative aims to address the escalating crisis in the U.S. immigration courts, which are grappling with an unprecedented backlog of cases and a dwindling number of experienced adjudicators. The plan involves potentially deploying up to 600 military-trained attorneys to preside over immigration hearings, a strategy that critics argue could undermine judicial independence and violate federal law.
Bolstering Ranks Amidst a Growing Backlog
The immigration court system has been overwhelmed for years, with the number of pending cases more than tripling since the start of fiscal year 2017. By late 2025, the backlog had swelled to over 3.4 million cases, leading to wait times that stretch for years, leaving asylum seekers and immigrants in prolonged uncertainty. To combat this, the Trump administration has sought to rapidly increase the number of judges available to handle these cases.
This recruitment drive comes at a time when the administration has also been actively dismissing or not renewing the contracts of many permanent immigration judges. Reports indicate that over 100 experienced judges have been let go or resigned since the administration took office, a move that union representatives and advocates claim exacerbates the very shortage the military lawyer initiative is intended to solve. The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has also relaxed eligibility requirements for temporary judges, removing the need for extensive immigration law experience.
Legal and Ethical Storm Clouds
The decision to utilize military lawyers, often referred to as JAGs (Judge Advocate General’s Corps), has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and lawmakers. A primary concern is the potential violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement purposes, except in specific circumstances authorized by Congress. While the Department of Justice is reportedly responsible for ensuring compliance with the law, some experts, including a past memo from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, have raised serious questions about the legality of military lawyers performing civilian judicial functions.
Beyond legality, there are profound concerns about the military lawyers’ lack of specialized immigration law expertise. JAGs are trained primarily in military law, and their experience in immigration proceedings is often minimal, sometimes limited to a few hours of training during their legal education. Experts warn that this deficiency could compromise the fairness of immigration hearings, which often involve complex asylum claims and life-altering decisions for individuals and families.
Furthermore, critics argue that placing military lawyers in this role could blur the lines between civilian courts and the military, potentially influencing judicial independence. As government employees bound by military orders and facing potential career repercussions, there are fears that these temporary judges might be susceptible to political pressure, potentially aligning their decisions with the administration’s broader immigration enforcement agenda rather than impartially applying the law. This situation is a significant development in the ongoing news surrounding border security and immigration policy.
Implications for Military Readiness and Due Process
The deployment of military lawyers to immigration courts also raises questions about its impact on the military justice system itself. Diverting these legal professionals from their core duties of supporting service members and advising commanders could affect military readiness and the adjudication of cases within the armed forces.
Immigration advocates, many of whom are veterans themselves, view the initiative as a symptom of a broader trend of militarizing immigration enforcement. They express alarm that the administration is prioritizing its deportation goals over due process and the fair administration of justice. The Trump administration has increasingly turned to military resources to support its immigration crackdown, including deploying troops to the border and using military bases for detention.
While the administration claims this measure is necessary to alleviate the judicial backlog, its critics contend that it represents a high-risk, potentially unlawful strategy that sacrifices judicial integrity and fundamental rights in the pursuit of stricter immigration enforcement. The ongoing situation remains a trending topic, highlighting the deep divisions and challenges facing the US immigration system.
