This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Introduced March 5, 2026 by Zoe Lofgren · Last progress March 5, 2026
Creates a statutory United States Immigration Courts inside the Immigration and Nationality Act, moves most functions, staff, records, and funds of the Executive Office for Immigration Review into that new court structure, and sets rules for hiring, budgeting, reporting, and a four-year transition from the current system. The bill preserves existing case precedent and ongoing proceedings while giving the new courts authority over staffing (including some hiring outside standard federal competitive service rules), direct budgeting and spending authority, annual public reporting requirements, and staggered judicial appointments to ensure continuity.
The bill formalizes and centralizes U.S. Immigration Courts—giving them statutory status, more hiring and budget autonomy, and new transparency tools to improve continuity and efficiency—while creating risks to civil-service protections, judicial-executive fiscal coordination, privacy and politiciz
Immigration courts and procedures get a clear statutory foundation and continuity (existing cases, rules, and precedents carry forward), reducing legal uncertainty for people in immigration proceedings and for lawyers and courts.
Courts gain greater operational autonomy (faster hiring, tailored pay, and direct control over annual budgets), which should let immigration courts hire staff and allocate resources more quickly to reduce delays and support case processing.
People in removal proceedings retain procedural protections and continuity of hearings (transfer of pending cases, requirement to maintain records, clearer venue rules, and access to hearings before immigration judges), improving legal predictability and access to adjudication.
Removing routine executive review of court budgets and giving courts direct control over appropriated funds risks weakened fiscal coordination with broader federal priorities and could blur separation between judicial and executive functions.
Allowing noncompetitive hiring and pay-setting outside standard civil service rules reduces transparency, equal-opportunity safeguards, and employee appeal/grievance rights, increasing risks of favoritism or patronage in court staffing.
Publishing judge- and area-level outcomes and frequent Congressional reporting could politicize adjudication and create pressure to prioritize speed over thoroughness, risking inconsistent or lower-quality decisions.