On March 6, Representatives Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Jamie Raskin (MD-08) and Hank Johnson (GA-04) unveiled the Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026, legislation that would remove the nation’s 650 immigration judges from the Department of Justice and re-establish them as judges of an independent Article I court. Supporters say the move is needed to safeguard due-process rights amid a backlog approaching four million cases and growing allegations of political interference in docket management.
Under the bill, the new court would have a trial division, appellate division and administrative office, with judges appointed for renewable 15-year terms and protected from arbitrary reassignment. Funding would be set on a multi-year cycle to insulate operations from executive-branch budget wrangling, and modern case-management technology would be mandated to speed adjudication.
![House Democrats re-introduce ‘Real Courts, Rule of Law Act’ to create independent immigration judiciary]()
For business-immigration stakeholders, an Article I court could yield more predictable scheduling of merits hearings and clearer precedents on issues such as specialized knowledge, wage levels and non-immigrant intent. However, transition costs and the need to draft entirely new procedural rules mean any changeover would take years, so immediate relief for employers facing removal-order risks is unlikely.
The American Bar Association, Federal Bar Association and National Association of Immigration Judges issued endorsements within hours of the bill’s release, but its fate in a divided Congress is uncertain. While some Republican lawmakers have previously backed independence in principle, they now argue that an Article I court could hamper rapid enforcement directives from the executive branch. Hearings are expected in the House Judiciary Committee later this spring.
Under the bill, the new court would have a trial division, appellate division and administrative office, with judges appointed for renewable 15-year terms and protected from arbitrary reassignment. Funding would be set on a multi-year cycle to insulate operations from executive-branch budget wrangling, and modern case-management technology would be mandated to speed adjudication.
For business-immigration stakeholders, an Article I court could yield more predictable scheduling of merits hearings and clearer precedents on issues such as specialized knowledge, wage levels and non-immigrant intent. However, transition costs and the need to draft entirely new procedural rules mean any changeover would take years, so immediate relief for employers facing removal-order risks is unlikely.
The American Bar Association, Federal Bar Association and National Association of Immigration Judges issued endorsements within hours of the bill’s release, but its fate in a divided Congress is uncertain. While some Republican lawmakers have previously backed independence in principle, they now argue that an Article I court could hamper rapid enforcement directives from the executive branch. Hearings are expected in the House Judiciary Committee later this spring.
