In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, we examine a structural failure most Americans don’t even know exists.
Immigration judges are federal judges—but they are not Article III judges. They do not belong to the independent judicial branch. They are Article II judges: administrative law judges inside the Executive Branch who ultimately work for the President of the United States through the Attorney General.
That design was always risky. It relied on a critical assumption: that presidents would respect due process norms and refrain from pressuring judges to reach preferred outcomes.
Under Donald Trump, that assumption collapsed.
In this episode, we explain:
* the difference between Article III judges and immigration judges,
* why immigration judges are still bound by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,
* why neutrality of the decision-maker is one of the most fundamental requirements of due process,
* how executive pressure creates unconstitutional bias even without explicit orders,
* and how doctrines like pretermission are increasingly used as shortcuts to deport people without full hearings.
We also explore the paradox now baked into the system: immigration judges are expected to be neutral constitutional adjudicators while operating inside a political enforcement apparatus that rewards speed and removal.
The result is not just injustice in individual cases, but long-term damage to the legitimacy of the immigration court system—and to the rule of law itself.
Clear-eyed analysis of the rule of law when it matters most.
Subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief for honest explanations of how power, courts, and constitutional principles actually collide in real life.
