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. They may receive only minimal additional training before presiding over cases that impact people’s liberty, family integrity, and safety.
Why Military Appointments to Immigration Judge Positions Raise Alarms
The administration’s decision to recruit Judge Advocate General (JAG) attorneys to serve as immigration judges is raising serious concerns about fairness, competence, and due process in our nation’s immigration courts.
Key Legal and Ethical Concerns
Authority and Legal Limits on Military Immigration Judges
The Posse Comitatus Act restricts military involvement in civilian law enforcement. Legal scholars warn against merging military structures with civilian adjudication. This is especially relevant in sensitive venues like immigration court.
The Expertise Gap
Immigration law is one of the most complex areas of U.S. law. Military attorneys, often trained in very different areas of law, may lack the deep subject-matter knowledge required. This can result in flawed decisions, increased appeals, and mounting backlogs.
Judicial Independence and Chain of Command
Military culture depends on hierarchy and obedience. When transferred into the immigration court system, these values may compromise the independence of judges who should remain impartial and free from policy-driven influence.
Due Process at Risk
When a person’s liberty, safety, or family integrity is on the line, due process is non-negotiable. Substituting trained civilian immigration judges with military lawyers risks eroding the fairness and reliability that justice demands.
The Human Cost of Misplaced Authority
Immigration Judges Must Understand Trauma, Not Just Tactics
Immigration courts routinely hear cases involving refugees, survivors of violence, and victims of persecution. These individuals need empathetic adjudicators—not professionals trained to assess threats through a military lens.
A Culture Clash: Military vs. Humanitarian Adjudication
Military professionals are trained for war zones, not trauma-informed legal proceedings. Replacing trauma-sensitive immigration judges with officers from combat-readiness backgrounds may cause irreversible harm to vulnerable applicants.
Why Military Culture May Undermine the Role of Immigration Judges
While discipline and loyalty are vital in the military, they can conflict with the compassion and open-mindedness needed in immigration cases. Refugees don’t need a commander. They need a listener.
Protecting the Integrity of the Immigration System
Increasing military influence within immigration courts risks turning spaces of compassion into enforcement-focused chambers. That undermines the foundational promise of the U.S. as a refuge for those fleeing danger and injustice.
Shepelsky Law Group Stands for Fair Immigration Judges
At Shepelsky Law Group, we believe the immigration court system must be led by trained civilian judges who respect due process and human dignity. We call on policymakers to restore and preserve the independence of immigration courts through civilian leadership, training, and transparency.
Need Help with an Immigration Case? Call Us
If you or a loved one is facing removal proceedings or needs representation before an immigration judge, we’re here to help.
📞 Call us today at (718) 769-6352
🌐 Schedule your consultation: https://shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book