Inside Immigration Court

• Authors: Amelia Frank-Vitale (Princeton University), Lauren Heidbrink (California State University, Long Beach), Luis Xavier Guaman (Princeton University)
• Title: “Empty Justice: Ethnographic Court-Witnessing in Authoritarian Times”
• Journal: Journal for the Anthropology of North America

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reported that more than 130,000 new immigration court cases were established by the end of December 2025, adding to the more than 3.3 million backlogged cases already in the system. But when these court proceedings do take place, they are seldom witnessed by the public, according to Amelia Frank-Vitale, assistant professor of anthropology and international affairs.

To better understand immigration court proceedings, Frank-Vitale and a colleague from the University of California, Long Beach, are training and working with a group of undergraduate students from both institutions to build a ledger of off-the-record proceedings that shape what happens inside the courtroom.

“We document patterns that emerged by observing and listening, with particular attention to how judges narrate their own choices, the off-the-record conversations among immigration judges, attorneys, interpreters, and respondents, and how everyone reacts to the presence of masked federal agents in court and the possibility of respondents being arrested while following the law,” Frank-Vitale said.

The team found that some immigration judges tended to find legal ways to give respondents more time to develop their cases.
 
“For example, when the Department of Homeland Security seeks to have people who did not appear for their hearings removed in absentia, many judges grant the motions in a pro forma manner,” Frank-Vitale said. “However, some judges we observed invoked legal rationales to challenge every motion, requiring that new Notices to Appear be issued, giving people another chance to come to court. While these judges are not always those who eventually grant more cases than they deny, our findings suggest that some judges want to preserve due process to the fullest extent possible, especially as the current administration implements new regulations to short-circuit asylum adjudication.”  

Frank-Vitale also noted that the presence of observers in the courtroom can add an additional layer of accountability, and she encouraged teachers and students to reach out to join the project and help expand the research network to a larger geographic area.

“More than ever, now, understanding and communicating the inner workings of immigration court has existential importance both for the hundreds of thousands of people directly impacted by immigration enforcement, and for all of us,” Frank-Vitale said.
 

“We find ourselves in a moment when immigration court has become a primary battleground for the new ideological bent of the U.S. government,” Frank-Vitale said. “Immigration courts function as a legal barometer — and at times a proving ground — for executive policy. The combination of executive control, limited external checks, and the Attorney General’s direct authority makes them a uniquely sensitive site within the U.S. legal landscape, where the promise of impartial adjudication is continually tested by political influence and bureaucratic hierarchy. While other institutions may temper or delay authoritarian excesses, immigration courts have been legally constructed as a site under the direct influence of the executive. The processes that play out in these courts have historically been kept out of sight. This project seeks to bring this into the spotlight.”