Justice Department Revives Long-Dormant Law

Interior view of an empty courtroom with wooden furniture and American flags — Photo: Junial Enterprises / Shutterstock

For the first time ever, the Justice Department wants immigration judges to fine lawyers, immigrants, and witnesses for contempt in a system many already see as stacked against ordinary people.

Story Snapshot

Justice Department proposes a rule letting immigration judges impose cash contempt fines on lawyers, clients, and witnesses.
The rule rests on a power Congress gave 30 years ago but was never used, raising questions about timing and intent.
Government lawyers would be shielded from these fines, deepening fears of a two-tier justice system in immigration court.
The move fits a broader Trump-era push to punish “frivolous” immigration litigation and tighten control over the courts.

What The New DOJ Rule Would Do

The Department of Justice has proposed a rule that would give immigration judges clear power to fine people in their courtroom for contempt, including private immigration lawyers, migrants with cases, and witnesses who appear before the court. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs the immigration courts, says fines could range from about $1,000 to $3,500 when someone disobeys repeated orders, lies, or disrupts hearings. The rule would spell out what conduct qualifies, the process judges must follow, and how people can appeal a penalty.

Justice Department officials say the goal is simple: keep crowded immigration dockets under control and make sure judges can enforce basic rules. In the proposal, the agency argues judges need “every tool available” to manage cases where parties ignore deadlines, fail to show up, or engage in disorderly behavior. Supporters point out that federal judges already use contempt powers and civil fines to enforce orders, including against government attorneys who defy rulings in high-profile immigration disputes.

The Long-Delayed Power Congress Already Approved

Justice Department lawyers stress that they are not inventing this authority from scratch but finally carrying out a law Congress passed in the 1990s. Section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 gave immigration judges power, “under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General,” to impose civil money penalties for contempt of a judge’s proper exercise of authority. For roughly three decades, no Attorney General wrote those regulations, even as immigration caseloads and political fights over the border grew.

Legal commentators have argued that delaying those rules under both parties meant judges had to rely on weaker tools, like rescheduling hearings or reporting lawyers to state bar groups, when faced with serious misconduct. From that angle, the Trump Justice Department’s move looks like a long-overdue effort to enforce existing law and bring immigration courts closer to how other courts work. At the same time, doing this now—during a period of aggressive enforcement, mass deportation efforts, and heavy pressure on immigration advocates—makes many people on both the left and right wonder why this authority is suddenly a priority.

Shielding Government Lawyers And Targeting The Immigration Bar

The proposal contains a key carve-out: federal government employees, including lawyers from the Department of Homeland Security, would be exempt from contempt fines imposed by immigration judges. Critics say this creates a double standard, where private attorneys and migrants can be punished with cash penalties, but government lawyers who mishandle cases or ignore orders face no similar risk inside the same courtroom. That concern hits a nerve for many Americans who already feel the government protects its own while coming down hard on regular people.

This contempt rule does not stand alone. It fits into a wider Trump administration strategy to crack down on immigration attorneys and limit challenges to enforcement. In March 2025, President Trump issued a memo telling the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to seek sanctions against lawyers and firms that file “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious” immigration cases and accusing parts of the immigration bar of coaching asylum seekers to mislead authorities. Soon after, the Justice Department moved to sanction a California lawyer whose efforts briefly delayed his client’s deportation, arguing his claims were baseless.

Immigration Court As A Flashpoint In The Deep State Debate

Immigration advocates warn that giving judges direct fining power over lawyers and migrants inside a system run by the Department of Justice will chill strong legal defense and tilt the field even further toward the government. They note that immigration courts are not independent like regular federal courts; they sit inside the same department that enforces immigration laws. Past rules have already let Justice Department political appointees pull more strings in those courts, including allowing the agency’s own director to step in and decide stalled cases.

For conservatives angry about clogged dockets and gamesmanship in court, tougher tools against truly abusive tactics may sound like overdue discipline. For liberals alarmed by mass deportations and attacks on asylum, new fines aimed at immigration lawyers and their clients look like part of a broader attempt to scare people away from fighting their cases. Both sides, though, can see one common trend: more power flowing into the hands of federal officials, fewer checks from outside, and a justice system that feels less like a level playing field and more like a machine that serves the people in charge.