On Sept. 10, 2026, Prof. Jill E. Family, an internationally recognized scholar in immigration and administrative law at Widener University, moderated and hosted a virtual panel discussion with former judges Megan R. Jackler and Jeremiah Johnson, both of whom were fired by the Trump administration. During the discussion, the judges argued that their firings without cause are not only against America’s tradition of judicial independence but also impact due process in the immigration courts.

Jackler began by giving an overview of the types of relief that immigrants are eligible for based on their status. The most common types of relief include asylum based on past persecution or fear of future persecution on a protected ground, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, withholding under the Convention Against Torture and adjustment of status, which includes marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and other similar relief.

Johnson continued by discussing the chain of authority within the immigration court system. He described how the immigration judge “reports to an assistant chief immigration judge, who then reports to a regional deputy chief immigration judge, who then reports to a chief immigration judge, who then reports to a deputy director, who reports to a director, who reports to the deputy director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, who then reports to the attorney general, who then reports to the president.” Compared to other court systems in the judicial branch, the immigration court system is nested within the executive branch, which means that it enjoys less institutional independence. 

Johnson spoke further about how the current administration has threatened the independence that immigration judges have traditionally exercised to adjudicate cases. Despite the language of memos and laws remaining the same, immigration judges have been subject to heightened scrutiny, which has influenced them to rule a certain way due to pressure from the presidential administration. 

Megan Jackler, another judge who held a docket in New Orleans, revealed how she was one of the “first people fired on Inauguration Day, about three hours after the inauguration.” Her termination letter, which she received on Feb. 14, 2025 stated that the decision was made in the “best interest of the service” and thanked her for her work. Just before receiving her letter of termination, she heard an asylum case. After listening to the case and drafting the oral decision, she received texts from colleagues stating that they, along with members of the American Civil Liberties Union, had been fired. After seeing this, she too received an email from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) director stating that she had been fired. Jackler said she was shocked and “had never been fired from any job for 20 years, since [she] was 16.” 

Aside from this decision affecting the court process, it also increased the workload for other judges and reduced the number of experienced judges available. Jackler added how this decision affected her personally, as one of her children has special needs and her family depended on her salary and medical benefits. She shared that she always had outstanding evaluations, which meant the decision did not necessarily have a rationale. As a former Navy veteran, she “never had a decision overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals.” 

Similar to Jackler, Johnson stated that he was an outstanding immigration judge who was also fired in November 2025. He described the immigration court’s climate and explained that the staff was under significant pressure due to the sheer volume of cases they had to handle. After granting a family of four asylum, he saw that he had received a letter of termination. Upon reflection, Johnson admitted he was not thanked for his work, which emphasizes the unorthodox way many judges were fired. “Many have been tapped on the shoulder in a hearing and some judges [were] out on vacation.” 

Johnson and Jackler’s experience allowed the local courts to hear and adjudicate decisions efficiently. The loss of these judges greatly affects the court system, the immigration pipeline and the efficiency of the decision-making process. Arrests and sweeping deportations have led migrants to voluntarily self-deport due to the sheer stress of the situation. Johnson touched on Trump’s statement that the courts do not have the bandwidth to “give every person who deserves, by law, a hearing. It would just take too much time.” Johnson emphasized that statutory requirements and due process require a hearing, arguing that Trump’s decision to remove judges from the court was unconstitutional since “The President, under Article II authority, cannot tell an Article III judge what to do, [nor] fire an Article III judge.” Consequently, this decision expanded the power that the president had and did not respect the rule of law. 

Despite the issues immigration judges have faced under the current administration, Johnson ended on a positive note, believing that the American people will do the right thing. After arriving at the southern border, he mentioned how residents and ranchers in Southern states alike recognized the “dignity of our fellow persons,” conveying that this is still a shared American value. His emphasis on shared values, despite the uncertainty that immigrants and judges are facing, conveys hope and positivity for the future.