The federal government is quietly reshaping our immigration courts for its own purposes, under the noses of the public.
Over 125 immigration judges nationwide have been fired or resigned since the beginning of 2025, in spite of a backlog of over 3 million pending cases. Nearly half of the judges in Chicago have either been fired or resigned. Those still on the Chicago bench churn through cases in “mega master” hearings — as many as 185 cases at a time — and are pressured to rule in favor of deportation, regardless of the facts. This means dozens of men, women and children are packed into courtrooms for a mass deportation hearing that cannot possibly consider individual cases. The government has even advertised job listings for “deportation judges” to replace those who have been fired.
The horrifying reality is that this cruel decimation of due process is legal.
U.S. immigration courts are vastly different from other courts in the country. They are not part of the independent judiciary branch but are under the executive branch, subject to the political priorities that shift every four to eight years. President Donald Trump’s second administration has used this to its advantage, interfering to a far greater degree than previous administrations, to serve its promised end goal of mass deportations.
Today, people pursuing legal humanitarian relief in the U.S. are being deported through the administration’s intentional misuse of the courts. Young children are pitted against Justice Department lawyers in court; the administration first refused to pay legal assistance for children and more recently ended its contract with attorneys who represent children as young as infants.
We the people need to demand that Congress move the immigration courts to where they will be protected from executive whims. The American Bar Association has long pushed for immigration courts to become Article I courts, but no administration wants to relinquish its influence over immigration decisions.
The 2026 legislation Real Courts, Rule of Law Act (H.R.7836 and S.5094) is stalled in committee.
We are seeing the ramifications of past decades in which presidents prioritized their own influence rather than create a system of true, independent due process.
More Top Picks Best Window Air Conditioner
— Sarah Tipperreiter, Palatine
Voters fixated on gas prices
Gas prices are high, and that is an understandable concern for voters. But voting for a candidate or a political party based primarily on frustration with the price of gas is irrational. Under Republican leadership, the nation’s economy is overall stronger than it was when the Democrats and Joe Biden were in control. Our borders are secure.
The Democrats talk about high gas prices, but what are they offering that will bring prices down? And what does a vote for a Democrat mean on other issues? Do we want a return to migrants streaming into our country, costing us billions to support them? Do we want to see taxes increased? Do we want to put into power a political party that is dominated by candidates who hate the values that have made us the envy of the world?
Voters need to think beyond the price of gas and vote accordingly.
— David Howard, Rockford
Here’s fake news you can use
I’m thinking of starting a newsletter. It’ll be called Fake News You Can Use. Some of the stories I’ll cover include: how the president is handling the Iran war so well and not depleting our weapons supplies; how his Cabinet is not filled with incompetent sycophants; how dumping climate change regulations and opening national wilderness areas to exploitation are really good for the American people; how tax cuts for the rich are good for all of us; how gas prices are really not that high and will come down soon; how the Strait of Hormuz is really open; how the Pentagon has demanded a militarized ballroom and triumphal arch; the “Kash, Pete and Scott Gong Show”; and so many more.
There is just so much to write about!
— Mark Wieting, Glen Ellyn
Trump wrong to halt the war
President Donald Trump’s biggest mistake in his years in office was to stop fighting Iran to try to make a deal while Israel was also engaged in the war. Now to resume fighting looks petty and bullyish (“Trump threatens to ‘annihilate’ Iran,” in print Sept. 23).
If Trump hadn’t stopped the war to talk, this would all have been over a long time ago. There would be a new regime in Iran. The Strait of Hormuz would be open. The price of gas would be $2. Hezbollah and Hamas would be gone. The Middle East would have been transformed. There would be peace throughout the Middle East.
During World War II, nobody asked for a ceasefire to try to work out a deal with Germany and Japan. We fought until they surrendered. And what’s the result? We now have peace and have had peace for 80 years. But we are also friends and allies too.
War is hell, but it generally resolves things. Ceasefires just postpone the war, giving the losing side time to catch their breath and rebuild for Round 2.
— Larry Craig, Wilmette
Good way to honor his legacy
In response to letter writer Chuck Johnson’s suggestion (“A peak fit for Trump,” Sept. 23) for an appropriate way to honor President Donald Trump’s legacy, where do I send my money?
— Jeanne Martineau, Chicago
Press reporting Trump’s words
Regarding Earl Beal’s letter (“Outlets’ argument baseless,” Sept. 23): How is reporting word for word exactly what President Donald Trump has said broadcasting “slanted biases against Trump”? His words are there; the press is just reporting them to us.
— Julia Meyer, Arlington Heights
More Top Picks Best Butcher Block Cutting Boards
Editorial board’s bias showing
I found the editorial written about President Donald Trump and bias in the media to be a very well-written example of bias in the media (“Donald Trump and his gossamer skin are far too easily pricked,” Sept. 22).
Three times, the editorial refers to outlets such as CNN, MS NOW and Politico as showing a liberal bias. Not once does the Tribune Editorial Board write that any outlet, say Fox, Newsmax and One America News Network, has a conservative bias. Rather, it simply says Fox News “serves those partisans on the right.” Only “serves”?
Really, that’s the board’s only observation?
If the editorial board cannot report that there is a conservative bias at Fox, it should know its own bias is showing, and it isn’t a liberal one.
— Richard Winters, Mount Prospect
First lady should advocate here
The wire article about Melania Trump (“Low-profile first lady has new film,” in print Sept. 27), with details of how she is working tirelessly for the good of our country, is so positive and interesting. The details of her interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding the repatriation of Ukrainian children whom Russia kidnapped was especially interesting.
Ukraine says that more than 19,000 children have been abducted. While the return of 34 children, as reported by the White House, is admirable, I can envision Putin loving showing off his “humanity” with the few he returned.
The hypocrisy is so blatant. Melania Trump’s own husband has allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to grab and detain unaccompanied children. It would have been applauded if she had asked our own government for mercy. Would it have been too intrusive for her to suggest her own husband intervene with ICE and ask it to adhere to international and humanitarian laws? Our own government is mistreating these children, not a foreign power.
As for the kidnapped Ukrainian children, I wonder what deal was made. That is the way the Trump family operates — not based on conviction, mercy or patriotism, but quid pro quo.
I am thrilled for the Ukrainian families reunited with their children, but ache for the children around the world who are still pawns in the hideous war games the adults play for power and domination.
— Joanne Hoffman, Highland Park
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].