The recent announcement that the administration is recruiting Judge Advocate General (JAG) corps attorneys to fill immigration judge roles raises serious red flags for fairness in our courts.

These lawyers are trained in military law—not immigration law—and may receive only minimal additional training before presiding over cases that impact people’s liberty, family integrity, and safety.

There are key concerns at stake:

Authority & Legal Basis: The Posse Comitatus Act limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement, and past legal opinions warn against blending military command structures with civilian adjudication.
Expertise Gap: Immigration law is highly nuanced. Lack of deep subject-matter knowledge could lead to flawed decisions, reversible errors, and increased backlog from appeals.
Independence & Pressure: Military attorneys serving as judges may face implicit or explicit pressures to conform to policy priorities, undermining their ability to act impartially.
Due Process & Reliability: When lives and legal status are on the line, due process demands that adjudicators possess competence, independence, and legitimacy. This shift risks eroding those foundations.

At its core, the immigration system is supposed to protect people fleeing danger—war, domestic abuse, trafficking, and persecution. It is a system built on compassion, humanitarian values, and the legal right to seek safety.

When people who have spent their careers in the military—a structure built to fight wars, follow orders, and win battles—are placed in charge of deciding these sensitive cases, there’s a serious risk of losing that human touch. Immigration judges must understand trauma, fear, and the reasons people flee—not treat applicants as potential enemies.

Military culture is rooted in discipline, hierarchy, and combat readiness. Those skills are valuable in defending the nation but can clash with the empathy and open-mindedness required in asylum and humanitarian cases. Refugees and abuse survivors need a fair listener who can recognize pain, not a commander trained to assess threats. Bringing more military influence into the immigration system risks turning a court of compassion into one of enforcement—and that undermines America’s long tradition as a place of refuge for the persecuted.

At Shepelsky Law Group, we believe the integrity of immigration adjudication must not be compromised. Policymakers should prioritize reinforcing the existing immigration court system with trained civilian judges, preserving procedural safeguards, and ensuring that every individual receives a fair hearing.

If you or a loved one is facing removal proceedings or have questions about representation, our team is ready to help. Call us today at (718)769-6352 or schedule your consultation directly at: https://shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book