The ruling allows claims that immigration judges violated a specific public-access regulation to advance, while rejecting the observers’ request for immediate injunctive relief.
In a memorandum opinion filed in Advocates for Human Rights v. Bondi, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a sweeping order that would have barred immigration judges nationwide from a range of practices the observers viewed as restricting access. The court said the plaintiffs overextended by seeking to change practices at courts they never intended to visit, disputing measures that are lawful—such as requiring in-person attendance—and asking the court to superintend day-to-day operations like where hearing notices are posted and whether hearings start on time.
But the court also found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that two specific practices violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27, which generally requires that immigration hearings “be open to the public.” The first practice involved moving many immigration cases online while denying observers any access, whether remote or in-person. The second involved bringing in out-of-state judges to hear cases, particularly involving people of Somali descent, without giving the public adequate notice of where they could observe the proceedings.
The court declined to issue a preliminary injunction, largely because the government indicated it had stopped the challenged practices, thereby diminishing the chance that the plaintiffs would be harmed while the case unfolds. The court’s ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss was mixed: it denied the motion in part and granted it in part, allowing the suit to proceed on the two access-related claims.
The plaintiffs are volunteer observers who donate their time to attend immigration hearings to ensure the government respects people’s rights at those hearings. The defendants include Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department of Justice, the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and several immigration judges, all sued in their official capacities.
The court’s opinion noted that immigration proceedings are presumptively open to the public under federal regulations, subject to four exceptions for physical facility limitations, protection of witnesses or parties or the public interest, hearings concerning abused alien spouses, and information subject to a protective order. According to declarations from former immigration judges submitted by the plaintiffs, closures under these exceptions have historically been rare.
The government’s position on the plaintiffs’ allegations is not detailed in the court’s opinion beyond its motion to dismiss and its representation that it had stopped the challenged practices. The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.