San Francisco’s immigration court just took a gut punch with the abrupt firing of five more judges in a move that’s got everyone talking about the future of border policy.
NBC Bay Area reported that the Trump administration has sent shockwaves through the system, terminating judges Shuting Chen, Jeremiah Johnson, Patrick Savage, Amber George, and Louis Gordon last Friday, as part of a nationwide purge that’s axed over 90 judges this year.
Chen, who joined the bench under the prior administration in 2022, and Johnson, a veteran since 2017, were among those shown the door without any stated reason, leaving colleagues and courtrooms reeling by Monday.
The impact in San Francisco is stark—12 of the original 21 judges have been dismissed this year, leaving just nine to handle thousands of cases with backlogs piling up like rush-hour traffic.
One asylum hearing, previously set before Judge Savage, has been delayed by three years, a brutal wait for those already desperate for resolution in a system stretched thinner than a budget spreadsheet.
The remaining judges are swamped, juggling their own caseloads plus the overflow from their ousted peers, raising serious questions about whether justice can even be served under this strain.
Shuting Chen didn’t hold back, saying, “This is an all-out attack on the immigration court.” Her words paint a grim picture, and frankly, it’s hard to disagree when a court loses over half its bench in a single year, turning due process into a game of whack-a-mole.
Chen also lamented, “I am deeply sorry that I cannot be there to hear their cases,” reflecting a personal toll that’s tough to ignore, even if one supports tougher immigration enforcement.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice, which oversees immigration judges through its Executive Office for Immigration Review, is rolling out new policies and memos that have judges and attorneys buzzing with concern over court independence.
The administration defends its stance, claiming these changes are about enforcing laws neglected by the previous leadership, and they’re doubling down with a hiring push for what they controversially call “deportation judges.”
Social media posts from the Department of Homeland Security aren’t shy either, urging applicants to “bring the hammer down” on unauthorized migration—a phrase that’s more sledgehammer than scalpel for a nuanced issue.
Speculation is rife among court insiders that these firings might target judges with higher asylum approval rates or experience advocating for migrants, though the broader goal seems to be a complete overhaul of the system.
With military attorneys now stepping in as temporary judges, as announced in an October press release, and new hires being pitched a mission of strict enforcement, the direction is clear—even if the fairness of the process remains murky.
At the end of the day, restoring integrity to immigration courts is a noble goal, but not if it means bulldozing judicial independence or leaving desperate cases in limbo; there’s got to be a better way to secure borders without breaking the system.