Capturing the Courts: A Chilling Warning About Authoritarianism and Due Process

Friends:

I strongly encourage you to watch Jacob Soboroff’s sobering interview with Professor Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (see video below). 

The segment, titled “‘Capturing the Courts’: Chilling New UN Report Shows U.S. ‘More Vulnerable’ to Authoritarianism,” examines the Trump administration’s mass removal of immigration judges and the transformation of immigration courts into what critics describe as deportation machines.

Professor Satterthwaite is a professor of law at New York University and an internationally recognized authority on judicial independence. Together with Gehad Madi, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, she issued an extraordinary warning on July 16, 2026, about the politicization of the American immigration-court system. These special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, rather than representatives speaking on behalf of the United Nations as an institution. That distinction is important, but it does not make their findings any less alarming.

According to the experts, at least 135 immigration adjudicators have been terminated since January 2025: 113 immigration judges, 13 assistant chief immigration judges, and nine appellate immigration judges. The removals reportedly occurred without cause or individualized explanation.

The pattern does not appear random.

Of the 78 removed immigration judges for whom public data were available, 65 had asylum-grant rates higher than either the national average or the average for their particular court. Judges with backgrounds in immigrant defense and humanitarian advocacy were disproportionately removed, as were judges appointed during the Biden administration. More than half of the probationary judges appointed in April and July 2023 were terminated. Only one judge appointed by a Democratic administration reportedly remains on the Board of Immigration Appeals.

This is not ordinary personnel turnover. It bears the hallmarks of court capture: removing adjudicators whose decisions displease the executive, intimidating those who remain, and replacing independent professional judgment with political obedience.

Immigration judges occupy a particularly vulnerable position because immigration courts are housed inside the Department of Justice. Unlike Article III federal judges, immigration judges do not enjoy life tenure or the same structural independence from the executive branch. They are civil servants working under the authority of the attorney general—the same executive branch responsible for pursuing deportation.

That arrangement has always presented concerns about impartiality. What is happening now appears to be the exploitation of that weakness on a mass scale.

At the same time that judges have been removed, the Department of Justice has reportedly issued more than 50 policy memoranda governing immigration adjudication. Some warn judges that they may face disciplinary consequences for being considered too slow or biased. The administration has also expanded “mega” calendar hearings in which a single judge may be expected to preside over the cases of hundreds of people during one half-day session.

No meaningful individualized hearing can take place under such conditions. A person fleeing political persecution, domestic violence, religious repression, torture, or death cannot adequately present a complicated life history as one face among hundreds moving through an administrative assembly line.

The Fifth Amendment does not say that no citizen shall be deprived of liberty without due process. It says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Congressional legal analysis confirms that people physically present in the United States, including noncitizens facing removal, possess due-process protections and ordinarily must be provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Those words mean little, however, when judges fear termination for carefully considering the cases before them.

The administration’s actions are particularly perverse given the immense unresolved docket. At the end of May 2026, a staggering more than 3.24 million cases remained pending in immigration court. More than 2.3 million of the people involved had already submitted formal asylum applications and were awaiting hearings or decisions (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, 2026).

Yet courts are also being dismantled.

San Francisco’s main immigration court began the Trump administration’s second term with 21 judges. By the time the court closed on May 1, 2026, only two remained. Most of its approximately 117,000 cases were transferred to a court in Concord that already carried about 60,000 cases and had itself lost more than half of its judges. The San Francisco court had one of the country’s highest asylum caseloads and historically granted relief at rates significantly above the national average (Rodriguez, 2026).

A system genuinely concerned with resolving its backlog does not eliminate experienced judges, close a major court, transfer tens of thousands of cases into an already overwhelmed courthouse, and replace seasoned adjudicators with less experienced temporary personnel.

This is not primarily about efficiency. It is about controlling outcomes.

Authoritarianism does not always arrive with soldiers standing at the courthouse door. It can arrive through administrative memoranda, personnel decisions, shortened hearings, unexplained dismissals, impossible productivity requirements, courthouse closures, politically selected replacements, and the gradual normalization of fear among those entrusted with applying the law.

That is why Professor Satterthwaite’s larger warning is so important. Immigration courts may be the testing ground, but they need not be the endpoint. The federal government employs administrative law judges who decide cases involving Social Security disability benefits, labor protections, veterans’ claims, environmental regulations, workplace safety, and other matters affecting millions of Americans. Satterthwaite warns in the Soboroff interview that these administrative adjudicators—including judges deciding Social Security cases—could eventually become targets of similar executive control.

Once a government establishes that judges may be fired because their rulings are considered insufficiently aligned with executive policy, the precedent does not remain confined to immigrants. It becomes a model for disciplining administrative justice everywhere.

This is one of the defining dangers of authoritarian governance: an unpopular or politically marginalized population is targeted first, allowing new mechanisms of state power to be constructed with limited public resistance. Once those mechanisms are accepted, they can be turned toward others.

We therefore cannot regard the removal of immigration judges as merely an immigration-policy dispute. It is an attack on judicial independence, constitutional due process, separation of powers, and the basic democratic principle that courts must decide individual cases according to evidence and law—not according to the political objectives of the president.

As the UN experts declared, efficiency cannot justify the erosion of due process. When the government controls which judges remain, pressures them to produce predetermined results, and eliminates the institutional capacity for meaningful hearings, what remains may still be called a court.

But it no longer functions as one.

Please watch Jacob Soboroff’s interview with Professor Margaret Satterthwaite and share it widely. Immigration courts may be where this experiment in court capture is most visible today. The question before us is how far we will allow it to spread considering that our democracy is truly at risk.

References

MS NOW. (2026, July 19). “Capturing the courts”: Chilling new UN report shows U.S. “more vulnerable” to authoritarianism [Video], MSN Now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDxDSe0A4Gs

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2026, July 16). USA: UN experts condemn arbitrary terminations of more than 100 immigration judges. https://independence-judges-lawyers.org/

Rodriguez, O. R. (2026, May 24). San Francisco immigration court shuts down after purge of judges, leaving asylum cases in chaos, Associated Press. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-05-24/san-francisco-immigration-court-has-shut-asylum-cases-in-chaos

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (2026). Immigration. https://tracreports.org/immigration/

Ward, J. (2026, July 16). UN experts concerned by Trump’s removal of immigration judges. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/un-experts-concerned-by-trumps-removal-immigration-judges-2026-07-16/

‘Capturing the courts’: CHILLING new UN Report shows U.S. ‘more vulnerable’ to authoritarianism

Jul 19, 2026 #Trump #Politics #UnitedNations

UN experts warn that the Trump administration is turning America's immigration courts into "deportation machines" through purges of its judges and using "administrative manipulation" to curb the courts' ability to carry out fair and impartial hearings. And it may not stop at immigration. Administrative judges – including those deciding Social Security cases – could be next, warns Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. MS NOW: My Source for News, Opinion, and the World. » Subscribe to MS NOW:    / @msnow   » Subscribe to MS NOW’s We the People Newsletter for exclusive content from your favorite MS NOW anchors. Sign up now for free at https://ms.now/joinus MS NOW is the go-to destination for domestic and international breaking news, and best-in-class opinion journalism. For more context and news coverage of the most important stories of our day click here: https://www.ms.now/ #Trump #Politics #UnitedNations

Expert Explains the Power of Implicit Bias [Video] by Dr. Efren O. Perez

I encourage all to listen to Dr. Efren O. Perez' presentation on the topic of implicit bias. His biography is interesting, considering that he is a "Political Psychologist," a pairing of terms in a professional title that I've not come
across myself until now. Currently, Dr. Perez is a Professor of Political Science and Psychology, UCLA, where he also serves Director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy.

Understanding implicit bias is of obvious importance to an increasingly diverse nation where intergroup relations are oftentimes fraught with emotion and serious consequences. See informative synopsis below.

-Angela Valenzuela

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Biases that people hold below the surface are influencing how they view this electoral season, as well as major political issues before them, such as race relations, gun control and immigration, according to a Vanderbilt University researcher. Vanderbilt professor Efrén O. Pérez, author of Unspoken Politics: Implicit Attitudes and Political Thinking, is available to talk about “implicit bias”. Pérez, associate professor of political science and sociology at Vanderbilt, calls implicit bias “an umbrella term for a variety of attitudes, beliefs and knowledge, and stereotypes that we all carry to some degree. They tend to be automatically triggered, hard to control, and can often influence what we say and do without our awareness.” Pérez says our mind picks up on patterns that we see in society, the media, and other places and forms snap judgements before our mind has time to process all the information in a more deliberative and controlled manner. “One of the best examples in the United States concerns its racial hierarchy: the idea that racial and ethnic groups are arrayed in descending order of social status and dominance, with whites atop and minorities to varying degrees below. Even if someone explicitly disavows this state of affairs,” Pérez explains, “a part of one’s mind recognizes that in the U.S., whites are more socially esteemed than non-whites.” LATINOS AND IMMIGRATION He gives the example of immigration. “I've done work showing that many people in the mass public have an implicit attitude toward Latinos, which tends to be negatively charged—and opposite of what they self-report to pollsters. This implicit attitude emerges, in part, because people’s minds detect patterns in immigration news coverage, where one group is constantly paired with negative information, irrespective of whether the information is valid or not. Part of our mind learns a negative evaluation of this group and stores it memory. So, when the issue of immigration is broached, it draws out this implicit attitude, which colors people's thinking about immigration politics.” POLICE, GUNS AND AFRICAN AMERICANS Pérez says despite all the training police officers receive, when it comes to split decisions, implicit bias often comes into play. And that implicit bias often consists of a mental association between African Americans and weapons that many people—including trained police officers—possess. “Even with all the motivation in the world to make a calm and controlled decision, implicit bias can get the best of people if they don’t have sufficient time and clear enough information to wholly analyze a situation,” said Pérez. POLITICS Pérez says studies show that people in polls who claim to be undecided actually have an implicit preference for a candidate as much as four weeks before an election. That implicit preference ends up predicting who they vote for. And often, instead of spending time getting more information, people try to rationalize their initial thoughts. Pérez says if there is “just something” about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump that a voter doesn’t like, without digging deeper into substantive issues, it’s probably because that person is relying on their implicit attitude toward either candidate. “A lot of what we consider to be deliberation is, at the end of the day, a verbal rationalization of those implicit responses we all have,” said Pérez TESTING IMPLICIT BIAS One way to reliably measure implicit bias is through the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a timed computer-based measure that can detect “blind spots” in one’s thinking. Pérez believes continuing this area of study will help us go beyond the traditional public opinion survey to better understand what voters really think. “In many ways, what we’re learning is that implicit cognition is primary to what we characterize as explicit cognition. So that means that the tip of the iceberg—or what people are willing to talk about in a survey— is often heavily influenced by what is submerged below—things that people either don't want to or can't report,” said Pérez. “Nonetheless, these thoughts still leave an imprint on what individuals ultimately believe.” -VU- Follow Vanderbilt on Twitter: https://twitter.com/vanderbiltu, on Instagram: http://instagram.com/vanderbiltu and on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vanderbilt. See all Vanderbilt social media at http://social.vanderbilt.edu.

Luz Elena Valenzuela Performs "Havana," by Camile Cabello [YouTube Video]

Emilio and I are proud to be Luz Elena's parents.  Here, she is performing a cover titled, "Havana," by Camile Cabello, that she recorded today, July 11, 2018.  

Please consider subscribing to her Youtube channel, luzamora.  

Luz Elena Valenzuela is a recent graduate of Southwestern University, holds a bachelors degree in Fine Arts, musical performance opera, with plans to attend Graduate School in the near future. She sings in many languages, including Spanish, Italian, German, French, and of course, English.

As you can hear from this cover, she is a versatile singer—and she'll be performing soon in Scotland as part of the Don Juan Project musical theater at the Fringe Festival in the month of August, 2018.

Her parents will join her and I'll be blogging from there, as well. :-)

Angela Valenzuela (a.k.a. "Mami")


#ShamelessMom   https://youtu.be/vxDoO7KSK5Q via @YouTube 

Video from July 18, 2016 TEA Press Conference on Racist Mexican-American textbook under review by the Texas State Board of Education

Boasting an excellent set of studied presentations, this press conference video was recorded today on July 18, 2016 at the Texas Education agency in Austin, Texas.  

Responsible Ethnic Studies Textbook Coalition ("REST Coalition")

In order of presentation by highly-regarded Mexican American Studies scholars, they collectively amount to a solid protest primarily against the controversial Mexican-American textbook authored by Jaime Riddle and Valarie Angle titled, "Mexican American Heritage," that is currently getting considered for adoption by Texas' State Board of Education (SBOE). 

The SBOE will take up the matter at their September 13, 2016 meeting (which continues through Friday, September, 2016), with a final vote on the textbook taking place at their November 15, 2016 meeting—both in Austin, Texas, William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress, Austin, TX.  

PLEASE PUT THESE TWO DATES ON YOUR CALENDARS SO THAT YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD.

Today's press conference takes place on the heels of the June 16, 2016 Mexican American Studies Summit that took place in San Antonio, as well as on 4 years of organizing by the NACCS-Tejas Foco statewide organization that is a regional member site of its national parent organization by the same name (i.e., National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies).  

The San Antonio summit addressed the textbook and other matters pertinent to Mexican American and ethnic studies, generally.  What follows are scholar's expressed critique of the textbook:

 Dr. Emilio Zamora-UT-Austin

Dr. Liliana Patricia Saldaña-UTSA

Dr. José María "Chema" Herrera-Cotera-UTEP 

Kathy Miller, Director of the Texas Freedom Network, along with others that made comments like Dr. Emilio Zamora, Juan Tejeda, and Anita Quintanilla who caps off the whole press conference by saying that Texas and the Southwestern United States is our "Motherland" and that we (Mexicans/Mexican Americans) are not illegal.

Please consider signing a petition on behalf of our Responsible Ethnic Studies Textbook Coalition (or "REST Coalition") at masforTexas.org.  Additional information is available at mastexas.org.  I intend to also keep covering this on my blog.

Angela Valenzuela

c/s

#nothingaboutuswithoutus
#TxEd
#MAStexas 
#LibrotraficanteNation

The Georgia way of life Series -"The birth of Stone mountain" - part 1

Excellent, brief history in this 11:21-minute video on the birth of the KKK.  It actually fronts an entire excellent series titled, "The Georgia Way of Life," that follows this on Youtube looks at the deep history of institutionalized racial prejudice and discrimination.  I'm teaching a Foundations in Education Policy class this semester and so I'm really focused right now on origins.

Finding clear expression in strategy, here's the historic appeal of the Klan.  They appealed to a broad spectrum of whites by widening their hatred beyond African Americans, to include Jews, Catholics, and immigrants (today, it's Mexicans, too, despite their decisive contributions to the re-building of Georgia in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, as well as their central role in the building of the Olympic Park in anticipation of the 1996 Olympic Games).  

As we all know, they also appealed (and appeal) to sacred symbols of Christianity and the American flag while exploiting the public's fears against "the other."

The Klan was born on June, 1866 in Pulaski, TN.  All should consider the implications today of this deep history.

-Angela c/s

The Georgia way of life -The birth of Stone mountain- part1