Immigration Courts Independence Act

Full Title:
Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026

Summary#

The bill would create an independent system called the United States Immigration Courts as an Article I court (a court created by Congress rather than under Article III). It moves immigration judges and most functions now in the Executive Office for Immigration Review into that new court system. The main goal is to place immigration adjudication outside the executive branch and give the new court its own judges, rules, budget, and procedures.

  • Main change: Establishes an appellate division (21 judges) and a trial division of immigration trial judges, plus an administrative division to run the courts.
  • Who decides and who appoints: The President appoints appellate (appeals) judges with Senate confirmation. The appellate division appoints trial judges. Terms are 15 years.
  • Budget independence: The Immigration Courts would set their own budget and include it in the President’s budget to Congress, without executive-branch review.
  • Procedures and transparency: The appellate division writes rules, requires written opinions where practicable, publishes precedent decisions and many records, and creates rules governing fees, representation, and interpreter programs.
  • Transition: Current EOIR immigration judges are redesignated as interim trial judges during a transition period. Pending cases transfer to the new courts.

What it means for you#

  • People in removal or immigration court cases: Your case would be decided by an immigration trial judge in the new Immigration Courts. Trial decisions would be in writing when practical. The appellate division would hear appeals. The bill requires interpreter services, and a legal orientation program run with nonprofits.
  • Current immigration judges and EOIR staff: Judges working in EOIR on the application date become interim immigration trial judges. Judges would have 15-year terms, retirement rules, and new pay levels (see Expenses). Many staff appointments would be made outside the regular competitive civil-service procedures.
  • Attorneys and non-attorney representatives: The appellate division will set admission rules and professional standards for practice before the Immigration Courts and will have disciplinary authority over practitioners.
  • Department of Homeland Security and government lawyers: Many references to the Attorney General are replaced by the Immigration Courts or the Secretary of Homeland Security where appropriate. The Secretary still handles enforcement and many immigration functions, but the courts handle adjudication.
  • Courts of appeals and litigants: Appeals from the Immigration Courts go to the U.S. courts of appeals in the circuit where the underlying decision was made (venue rules are set in the bill).
  • Public and researchers: The appellate division must publish precedent decisions and make non-confidential records public, subject to confidentiality protections for asylum and security-related material.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill would create ongoing costs for salaries, staff, offices, IT, and court support.
  • Salaries are set in statute: appellate judges would be paid the same as U.S. district judges; trial judges would be paid 92% of that salary. This could raise judicial payroll compared with current levels.
  • The courts would have authority to set and publish filing fees (capped at comparable federal court or DHS fees) with hardship waivers.
  • The courts may create temporary judges and facilities when needed; those actions could require additional spending and include reporting to Congress.
  • The bill shifts employees, appropriations, and other assets from EOIR to the new courts on the application date. The exact fiscal transfer and any one-time transition costs are not estimated in the bill text.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to create an independent adjudicative body for immigration cases, separate from the executive branch. This could be seen as strengthening impartiality and the rule of law.
  • It would likely increase transparency and written reasoning by requiring written opinions when practicable and publishing precedent decisions.
  • Creating court rules, interpreter programs, and a legal orientation program could improve fairness and access to justice for non‑English speakers and unrepresented parties.
  • The statutory terms, removal protections, and specified qualifications aim to professionalize the immigration judiciary and set uniform standards.
  • Budgetary independence and a quadrennial external review by the Judicial Conference are included to support court administration and oversight.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is cost: the bill does not include a fiscal estimate, but it creates new judicial salaries, staff, and separate administrative structures that could increase federal spending.
  • The transition moves many EOIR functions, personnel, and appropriations to a new court. The bill does not provide detailed implementation timelines or a published cost estimate, so the size and timing of transition costs are unclear.
  • Although the courts are placed outside the executive branch, appellate judges are presidentially appointed with Senate confirmation, so political influence over appointments would remain.
  • The bill allows the appellate division to set pay and hire staff outside standard civil-service rules. This could raise questions about hiring practices, personnel protections, and comparability with other federal courts.
  • Some administrative details are left vague: for example, how coordination with DHS will work in practice, how confidential asylum or national security materials will be handled in publication, and how appeals and venue questions will be managed during the transition.
  • The temporary-judge authority includes recall of retired judges and short-term facilities, but the procedures and limits (including a 210-day default end date unless Congress acts) could create short-term capacity challenges if caseloads remain high.