Popular in Law

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Law

Surrey’s Silence: Subpart F and the Swiss Subsidiary Tax that Never Was

Boston University Steven Dean

Criminal Law

Prosecuting Misdemeanors

American University Jenny Roberts

Human Rights Law

Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture

Tufts University Tom Dannenbaum

Corporate Law

Data Valuation and Law

University of Southern California Jordan Barry

Detained Immigration Courts

View more insights in Professional - Law - Criminal Law - Immigration Law

View more figures from University of California Los Angeles

View the page of Ingrid Eagly

Read the Study

Ingrid Eagly discusses the modern development and institutional design of detained immigration courts—that is, the courts that tie detention to deportation.

Image courtesy of interviewee. July 31, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video is an interview discussing detained immigration courts, featuring Ingrid, a researcher who co-authored an article on the subject. Ingrid explains that detained immigration courts are part of a system handling cases for individuals who are detained during their immigration proceedings, often throughout the entire adjudication process. Her article, published in the Virginia Law Review, aims to combine existing scholarship on immigration courts and detention, exploring fundamental fairness and due process within these systems.

Key points from their discussion include:
- Over 3.6 million people have had their cases initiated while in detention since 1983, with significant growth in the number of cases over time.
- The demographics of detainees show a disproportionate representation of Latino males, primarily from Mexico and Central America.
- A shift in the adjudication model is noted, with cases increasingly heard in rural areas and detention centers, moving away from traditional urban immigration courts.
- Institutional differences between detained and non-detained courts include geographical location, expedited case timetables, reliance on video adjudication, and limited public access.
- The judges assigned to detained courts tend to have backgrounds that may influence case outcomes, such as a greater likelihood of being male and having prior experience as prosecutors.

Ingrid emphasizes the implications of their work for both academic research and policy discussions regarding immigration detention and court reform, highlighting concerns about fairness and access to justice within the detained immigration court system.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video regarding the article on detained immigration courts:

1. **Focus on Detained Immigration Courts**: The article by the author and co-author Steven Schafer primarily examines detained immigration courts, which handle cases of individuals who are detained during their immigration proceedings. This aspect of the immigration court system is presented as a new contribution to existing scholarship.

2. **Evolution of Detained Cases**: The article provides a historical overview of how the number of cases initiated in detention has significantly increased since 1983, highlighting that over 3.6 million cases have started while individuals were in immigration detention, with a marked increase prior to the pandemic.

3. **Demographics and Patterns**: The analysis reveals demographic information about individuals in detained courts, showing a disproportionate representation of adult males from Latin American countries, particularly Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. It also notes gender disparities, indicating that only a small percentage of cases initiated in detention involve women and girls.

4. **Different Court Models**: The study explores various models of detained immigration courts, including those located in urban areas, rural locations, and within detention facilities, emphasizing the growing prevalence of co-located courts. It suggests that this segregation may impact the judicial process and the perceived fairness of these courts.

5. **Judicial Specialization and Backgrounds**: The article investigates the backgrounds of immigration judges in detained versus non-detained courts, finding a troubling trend where judges in detained courts are more likely to come from a law enforcement or prosecutorial background, which might influence their decision-making and result in higher denial rates for asylum claims and other legal relief options.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes extracted from the video:

1. **Introduction of the Article**:
- "Detained Immigration Courts is actually the title of my new article that I just published with my co-author Steven Schafer in the Virginia Law Review."

2. **Defining Detained Immigration Courts**:
- "Detained immigration courts refers to immigration courts that hear the cases of people who are detained, often detained during the entire time of the adjudication of their case."

3. **Focus of the Article**:
- "Our focus on the detained immigration courts is a new contribution to the scholarship that has looked at immigration courts overall."

4. **Assessment of Fairness**:
- "We look inside what we identify as a separate adjudication system and sort of assess and ask questions about the fundamental fairness and due process issues that occur within those detained courts."

5. **Data Utilization**:
- "Utilizing immigration court data to really just ask some basic descriptive questions about where are these courts, how have they evolved over time, and who has their cases decided in these courts."

6. **Trends in Detention**:
- "Over 3.6 million people have had their cases start while they were in immigration detention... the numbers have increased over time."

7. **Regional Variations**:
- "We’re increasingly seeing detained cases and detained courts being located in rural areas and small cities outside of major urban areas."

8. **Judicial Backgrounds and Specialization**:
- "We find a real division between the judges, which allows us to then compare the backgrounds of the judges who are in the detained courts versus the non-detained courts."

9. **Gender and Nationality Discrepancies**:
- "Adult males from Latin America who are disproportionately assigned to these detained courts... three and four people who had cases initiated in detention were from the countries of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras."

10. **Conclusions and Implications**:
- "We would like to inject into that discussion an awareness about the courts that are linking detention to immigration courts and whether we should still have it and how it threatens fundamental fairness and due process within the immigration courts."

These quotes encapsulate the key themes and findings of the article regarding detained immigration courts, their functioning, and implications for fairness in the legal process.

Export as PDF
Here are some similar articles related to detained immigration courts, immigration policy, and due process issues within the immigration system:

1. **"The Perils of Detained Immigration Courts"** - This article examines the challenges faced by individuals in detained immigration proceedings, including the lack of legal representation, expedited timelines, and the impact on their ability to present a fair case in front of a judge.

2. **"Justice in a Box: The Impact of Video Adjudication in Immigration Courts"** - This article analyzes the rise of video hearings in immigration courts, discussing how this method affects the fairness of the adjudication process for detainees, including implications for due process.

3. **"Demographics and Detention: Examining the Overrepresentation of Latinos in Immigration Custody"** - A research study focusing on the demographics of detained immigrants, exploring systemic biases and factors contributing to the disproportionate number of Latino detainees in the U.S. immigration system.

4. **"Moving the Courts: The Shift from Urban to Rural Immigration Adjudications"** - This article discusses the trend of moving immigration courts to rural areas and its implications for access to legal assistance, representation, and the effectiveness of the adjudication process.

5. **"Due Process in Detention: The Importance of Fairness in Immigration Proceedings"** - This paper delves into the fundamental due process rights of individuals in immigration detention, addressing the procedural shortcomings of detained immigration courts and the necessity for reform.

6. **"The Role of Judges in Immigration Courts: Gender, Experience, and Case Outcomes"** - This article examines how the backgrounds and demographics of immigration judges can influence case outcomes in detained settings, particularly focusing on gender and prior prosecutorial experience.

7. **"Reforming Immigration Courts: Balancing Enforcement and Fairness"** - A review of proposals for reforming the immigration court system to improve fairness, transparency, and processes in the face of increasing detentions and expedited case handling.

These articles address various aspects of the detained immigration court system, such as procedural fairness, demographic issues, judicial influences, and the challenges of the current system, complementing the discussion presented in Ingrid's interview.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.165 --> 00:02.085
Detained Immigration Courts is actually the title

00:02.265 --> 00:04.325
of my new article that I just published

00:04.325 --> 00:08.165
with my co-author Steven Schafer in the Virginia Law Review.

00:08.785 --> 00:10.725
Um, and detained immigration courts,

00:10.725 --> 00:14.525
as we use the term refute, refers to immigration courts.

00:15.025 --> 00:18.085
Um, that here the cases of people who are detained,

00:18.375 --> 00:20.725
often detained during the entire time

00:20.905 --> 00:22.605
of the adjudication of their case.

00:23.345 --> 00:27.445
Um, our, our focus on the detained immigration courts,

00:27.585 --> 00:29.765
is a new contribution to the scholarship.

00:30.145 --> 00:32.525
Um, there's been a fair amount of scholarship now

00:32.525 --> 00:36.085
that has looked at the immigration courts overall,

00:36.095 --> 00:38.845
which is a set of, you know, now hundreds of,

00:38.945 --> 00:43.485
of federal judges who hear the cases of people who are,

00:43.935 --> 00:46.245
going through the immigration court system facing

00:46.765 --> 00:49.085
possible deportation from the United States,

00:49.115 --> 00:51.085
including the really important cases

00:51.465 --> 00:53.005
of people claiming asylum.

00:53.945 --> 00:56.765
Um, they're not, these judges aren't part of,

00:56.785 --> 00:58.725
an article one or an Article three court,

00:58.825 --> 01:00.845
but instead they are federal judges

01:01.025 --> 01:04.525
who serve within an agency called the Executive Office

01:04.585 --> 01:05.805
for Immigration Review.

01:06.305 --> 01:08.045
Um, inside the Department of Justice,

01:08.835 --> 01:11.685
there's also a separate body of scholarship that's sort

01:11.685 --> 01:15.725
of multidisciplinary and has been looking, at the, the,

01:15.825 --> 01:17.005
the, the companion piece.

01:17.005 --> 01:19.845
Then that's detention. So we have a growing system

01:20.065 --> 01:24.005
for detention in the United States that uses jails, prisons,

01:24.185 --> 01:26.165
and federal detention centers

01:26.585 --> 01:29.565
to house people at while they're going through,

01:29.565 --> 01:30.805
immigration proceedings.

01:31.385 --> 01:33.605
Um, so what our article does

01:33.605 --> 01:36.965
that is unique is it really links together these discussions

01:37.105 --> 01:39.005
on immigration courts on the one hand

01:39.105 --> 01:42.485
and detention on the other to look inside,

01:42.485 --> 01:45.245
what we identify as a separate adjudication system

01:45.425 --> 01:48.445
and sort of assess and ask questions about the fundamental

01:48.765 --> 01:52.365
fairness and, due process issues

01:52.365 --> 01:54.365
that occur within those detained courts.

01:54.425 --> 01:57.365
The purpose is to really bring those two, pieces

01:57.465 --> 01:58.645
of scholarship together.

01:58.905 --> 02:02.365
And in doing so, we had several aims. Um, in this article.

02:03.025 --> 02:05.205
I'd say the first major aim is,

02:05.355 --> 02:06.925
utilizing immigration court data

02:07.065 --> 02:10.605
to really just ask some basic descriptive questions about

02:11.015 --> 02:13.805
where are these courts, how have they evolved over time,

02:14.185 --> 02:17.085
and who has these case, their cases decided in these courts?

02:17.925 --> 02:21.585
The second main aim, is really sort of one to look at

02:21.585 --> 02:23.585
what are the different models when we say detained

02:23.585 --> 02:25.625
immigration courts, what falls within

02:26.425 --> 02:27.465
detained immigration courts

02:27.465 --> 02:28.985
and how have those,

02:28.985 --> 02:32.105
changes in court practices evolved over time?

02:32.805 --> 02:37.025
Um, and finally, we really want to interrogate the, sort

02:37.025 --> 02:39.385
of the root structures and rules,

02:39.685 --> 02:43.345
and procedures that apply in detained immigration courts

02:43.845 --> 02:47.505
by doing interviews with practitioners in these courts,

02:47.505 --> 02:50.305
reviewing other public records that we, obtained

02:50.305 --> 02:51.745
through public records requests

02:52.125 --> 02:54.185
and through court observations,

02:54.285 --> 02:57.305
at detained immigration courts, around the country

02:57.485 --> 02:58.665
to try to get at some of those

02:58.765 --> 03:02.045
Key questions, about whether this really is a separate

03:02.105 --> 03:04.125
and segregated immigration court system.

03:04.585 --> 03:08.125
We rely on a range of data to do our analysis,

03:08.145 --> 03:11.045
but in prevent presenting a descriptive analysis,

03:11.225 --> 03:13.285
we are really relying on data

03:13.355 --> 03:16.565
that is available from the Executive Office

03:16.585 --> 03:17.725
of Immigration Review

03:17.785 --> 03:21.805
or EOIR, which is an administrative database of all

03:21.805 --> 03:23.285
of the cases that have been decided

03:23.745 --> 03:25.525
by judges within those courts.

03:25.905 --> 03:30.645
Um, and those data, go back, many years

03:30.825 --> 03:34.525
and contained over 8.5 million individual cases,

03:35.065 --> 03:38.645
and we narrow that data down to, cases

03:38.675 --> 03:42.445
that were decided from 1983 to 2022

03:42.875 --> 03:44.805
with 1983 being an important year,

03:44.805 --> 03:48.485
because that's when the federal agency EYR was created.

03:49.185 --> 03:51.885
Um, and what we find just descriptively is that during

03:51.885 --> 03:54.325
that time period, since 1983,

03:54.635 --> 03:58.925
over 3.6 million people have had their cases start while

03:58.925 --> 04:00.645
they were in immigration detention.

04:01.265 --> 04:04.245
Um, and importantly, the numbers have increased over time.

04:04.425 --> 04:05.925
So whereas in 1983,

04:06.255 --> 04:08.045
fewer than a thousand people had their

04:08.045 --> 04:09.165
case start within detention.

04:09.785 --> 04:14.405
Um, this, the numbers reached an all time high by 2019 prior

04:14.405 --> 04:18.565
to the pandemic where nearly 200,000 people had their case,

04:18.985 --> 04:20.485
start within detention.

04:21.015 --> 04:23.525
We've also seen some variation within presidential

04:23.525 --> 04:25.365
administrations within the United States

04:25.795 --> 04:27.685
with the George W. Bush administration

04:27.745 --> 04:30.125
and the Obama administration,

04:30.125 --> 04:33.325
having particularly high numbers, in detained courts

04:33.555 --> 04:35.365
with, as high as two in,

04:35.385 --> 04:38.005
in every three people having their,

04:38.075 --> 04:39.405
case begin in detention.

04:40.935 --> 04:44.025
Another part of the answer to your question, though is also,

04:44.365 --> 04:46.145
using that EOIR data

04:46.365 --> 04:50.265
to look descriptively at other fields to describe the people

04:50.525 --> 04:52.945
who have their cases heard there and here.

04:53.125 --> 04:56.785
Um, we're able to rely on the fields for nationality,

04:56.805 --> 05:00.705
and more recently available fields for gender and for age.

05:01.745 --> 05:05.285
So using those fields, I think we're able to,

05:05.285 --> 05:08.085
you know, engage in some of the debates about,

05:08.145 --> 05:10.165
the criminalization of immigrants

05:10.225 --> 05:13.245
and show that it's really, you know, adult males,

05:13.275 --> 05:17.205
from Latin America who are disproportionately, assigned

05:17.225 --> 05:18.725
to these detained courts.

05:19.065 --> 05:20.685
In terms of nationality, we find

05:20.685 --> 05:24.845
during this time period from 83 to 2022, three

05:24.905 --> 05:26.445
and four, people

05:26.545 --> 05:30.565
who had cases initiated in detention were from the countries

05:30.565 --> 05:33.725
of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras.

05:34.065 --> 05:36.605
Um, and when we compare that to non detained courts,

05:36.605 --> 05:39.925
we see a, a greater diversity of nationalities represented.

05:40.905 --> 05:43.365
Um, we also see divergence in gender.

05:43.615 --> 05:46.765
Again, gender information was less available in earlier

05:46.895 --> 05:50.005
years, so we only rely on it starting in 2019,

05:50.585 --> 05:52.805
but we're able to see that in non detained courts.

05:52.805 --> 05:54.685
There's a fairly even split between women

05:54.705 --> 05:56.925
and girls on the one hand, and men

05:56.925 --> 05:58.805
and boys on the other who, who are,

05:58.865 --> 06:01.085
who are having cases heard in these courts.

06:01.505 --> 06:02.725
Um, however, in detention,

06:02.905 --> 06:05.725
we really see a gendered pattern emerge,

06:05.775 --> 06:08.805
where we have only 23% of those cases who are,

06:08.805 --> 06:11.165
that are initiated in detention are of women

06:11.185 --> 06:13.165
and girls, primarily with people

06:13.225 --> 06:15.845
who had their cases initiated in the,

06:16.225 --> 06:18.045
in the migrant protection protocols

06:18.045 --> 06:20.205
or MPP, the Remain in Mexico program.

06:21.255 --> 06:24.235
Um, and in terms of unaccompanied children,

06:25.155 --> 06:26.675
somewhat surprisingly, we do find children

06:26.775 --> 06:30.195
who have their case heard and decided in detention,

06:30.295 --> 06:32.515
but it was only 1% of the cases overall.

06:32.655 --> 06:35.035
We traditionally think of it immigration court,

06:35.175 --> 06:37.475
at least people who are familiar with immigration

06:37.495 --> 06:41.515
or immigration practitioners as being a downtown,

06:41.525 --> 06:44.595
urban court that is generally located in a government

06:44.835 --> 06:47.115
building, you know, maybe on the 13th floor.

06:47.655 --> 06:49.195
Um, and you go there

06:49.195 --> 06:52.035
and have your, your, your case heard for asylum

06:52.215 --> 06:53.555
or for some other claim.

06:54.455 --> 06:56.995
Um, and that model has existed for a long time

06:57.455 --> 06:58.475
and still exists.

06:58.775 --> 07:00.915
Um, and those courts do hear the cases

07:01.055 --> 07:02.515
of detained individuals.

07:02.935 --> 07:04.835
Um, but we've seen two major shifts

07:04.835 --> 07:06.155
during the time of our study.

07:06.615 --> 07:09.275
One is that fewer and fewer cases are heard in these

07:09.555 --> 07:11.355
downtown urban immigration courts.

07:11.935 --> 07:15.275
Um, and more, as I'll talk about, are being moved to,

07:15.885 --> 07:18.195
rural areas and small cities,

07:18.215 --> 07:19.995
and moved inside detention centers.

07:20.695 --> 07:24.875
Um, and additionally, the other pattern that we see is

07:24.875 --> 07:28.035
that major urban cities, including San Francisco,

07:28.135 --> 07:31.755
Los Angeles, where I'm sitting right now, Atlanta, New York,

07:31.905 --> 07:35.155
Chicago, these cities have actually created a separate

07:35.245 --> 07:36.955
court, often in a separate building

07:36.975 --> 07:40.355
and separate location to here detained courts, which,

07:40.355 --> 07:42.755
really goes to our, one of the major findings

07:42.755 --> 07:45.115
of this segregation between the court systems.

07:46.725 --> 07:49.745
So after thinking about, urban courts,

07:49.775 --> 07:52.185
another major model that I've already alluded

07:52.205 --> 07:54.305
to is the co-located courts,

07:54.305 --> 07:55.625
and these are courts

07:55.625 --> 07:58.425
that are actually housed within sites of detention.

07:58.965 --> 08:01.985
Um, this is something that started to emerge in the 1960s,

08:02.565 --> 08:03.705
when the INS,

08:03.705 --> 08:07.505
which is the former immigration enforcement agency, started

08:07.805 --> 08:12.225
to, started to prioritize the building of more

08:12.225 --> 08:13.705
and more, more

08:13.705 --> 08:15.985
and more detention centers around the country

08:16.015 --> 08:18.345
that were exclusively run by the federal,

08:18.365 --> 08:19.465
by the federal government.

08:19.845 --> 08:21.025
Um, and now we've seen more

08:21.025 --> 08:22.665
and more of these centers built,

08:22.685 --> 08:25.225
and especially more built, in,

08:25.525 --> 08:27.425
in the south, in the United States.

08:27.525 --> 08:31.265
So we see centers in general Louisiana, in Percel, Texas,

08:31.965 --> 08:35.425
and built into the, the very hardscape

08:35.445 --> 08:37.985
of these detention centers are immigration courts.

08:39.155 --> 08:41.455
Uh, just a few other models I could just quickly mention.

08:41.675 --> 08:45.015
Our court courts, the, the migrant protection protocols,

08:45.015 --> 08:48.495
courts are the remain in Mexico courts that are in tents

08:48.495 --> 08:50.335
or shipping containers along the border.

08:50.835 --> 08:54.695
Um, immigration adjudication centers, which are remote sites

08:54.695 --> 08:57.925
Where judges are separated from the individuals

08:57.985 --> 08:59.605
who case their hearing.

09:00.265 --> 09:04.365
Um, and oftentimes that these courts are focused on,

09:04.865 --> 09:08.285
on cases of detained individuals for part four of our paper,

09:08.785 --> 09:12.765
digs in more to institutional design elements

09:12.865 --> 09:13.885
of the courts.

09:13.905 --> 09:15.565
And we're particularly interested in

09:15.625 --> 09:17.365
how this separate court system

09:17.365 --> 09:20.725
that we identified the detained immigration courts,

09:20.945 --> 09:22.645
varies from its sister.

09:23.265 --> 09:26.165
Um, it was a court system, the non detained court system.

09:26.785 --> 09:28.525
So there's many aspects to this analysis.

09:28.525 --> 09:30.405
I don't have time to get into all of it here.

09:31.025 --> 09:35.165
Um, but one important distinction that we find is geography.

09:35.345 --> 09:38.285
So we're increasingly seeing detained cases

09:38.865 --> 09:42.565
and detained courts being located in rural areas

09:42.985 --> 09:46.685
and small cities outside of, you know, major urban areas.

09:47.105 --> 09:49.085
Um, and we're also seeing,

09:49.605 --> 09:51.645
a different hard hardscape in these courts.

09:51.665 --> 09:54.645
So oftentimes the detained immigration courts don't really

09:54.885 --> 09:57.285
resemble what we might think of as a court, you know,

09:57.285 --> 09:59.445
they're inside a tent or a shipping container

09:59.465 --> 10:00.765
or a border patrol station

10:00.865 --> 10:02.925
or inside a prison or inside a jail.

10:03.545 --> 10:06.405
Um, and, and so they don't really have the same kind

10:06.405 --> 10:08.325
of features as we might as,

10:08.345 --> 10:10.405
as we might see in a non detained court.

10:11.385 --> 10:13.835
There's also a different set of institutional rules

10:13.905 --> 10:14.995
that we identify.

10:15.335 --> 10:18.555
So for example, judge rules that require cases

10:18.735 --> 10:21.195
to be decided on a very expedited basis.

10:21.645 --> 10:24.195
Those rules have been as fast as the day,

10:24.255 --> 10:25.675
or as a week,

10:25.695 --> 10:29.275
but place the detained cases on a much faster timetable

10:29.665 --> 10:31.115
than non detained cases.

10:31.775 --> 10:35.355
We also see a heavier reliance on video adjudication, so

10:35.355 --> 10:37.715
where people aren't actually physically present in the

10:37.715 --> 10:40.755
courtroom, but rather are appearing from a remote location

10:40.785 --> 10:42.075
such as a detention center.

10:42.895 --> 10:44.195
Um, and importantly, we,

10:44.555 --> 10:46.875
although immigration courts are supposed to be public,

10:47.375 --> 10:51.955
we see constrained public access to sites such as these,

10:51.955 --> 10:54.475
prisons or detention centers that have special rules

10:54.615 --> 10:57.315
and can be difficult for the public family members.

10:57.365 --> 11:01.145
Loved ones to enter a final, thing that,

11:01.165 --> 11:02.705
if I just have a little bit more time I,

11:02.705 --> 11:05.625
that I do think is important to mention is the issue

11:05.625 --> 11:07.665
of specialization that we identify.

11:08.325 --> 11:10.025
Um, this has been something that,

11:10.025 --> 11:11.865
scholars have been really interested in.

11:12.025 --> 11:14.905
I know that Edward Chang in an important article on federal

11:15.165 --> 11:17.705
courts, written several years back,

11:17.965 --> 11:20.865
talked about the problematic issue of, of specialization.

11:21.205 --> 11:24.385
His focus was on the federal, court of appeals.

11:24.725 --> 11:26.865
Um, and he posited the question of, you know,

11:26.865 --> 11:29.385
what would happen if, if we just took federal, courts

11:29.385 --> 11:32.665
of appeals judges and, assigned all the ones

11:32.665 --> 11:35.825
who have a background as a prosecutor,

11:35.965 --> 11:37.545
to criminal criminal cases.

11:37.965 --> 11:40.825
Um, you know, he's, he writes in his article that, you know,

11:41.105 --> 11:44.465
regardless of your political leanings, this kind

11:44.465 --> 11:48.305
of lopsided assignment of ju judicial background, he says,

11:48.305 --> 11:50.585
would be almost unquestionably undesirable.

11:51.085 --> 11:52.785
So we were interested in sort of taking

11:52.785 --> 11:54.165
That insight and seeing

11:54.165 --> 11:56.285
what happens when we look at the backgrounds

11:56.425 --> 11:57.645
of immigration judges.

11:58.185 --> 12:01.685
And we were able to do this by gathering all

12:01.685 --> 12:04.285
of the biographies, judicial biographies

12:04.345 --> 12:05.965
of the judges in our study,

12:06.705 --> 12:09.285
and compare the judges who are assigned

12:09.285 --> 12:13.125
to these detained courts, to the judges who are just

12:13.645 --> 12:15.605
assigned to non detained courts.

12:15.945 --> 12:18.605
And importantly, we do find a segregation,

12:18.665 --> 12:22.845
in many cities, for example, in Boston we have,

12:22.905 --> 12:25.485
you know, almost 40 judges who've heard cases

12:25.545 --> 12:26.885
during the time period studied,

12:27.185 --> 12:30.085
but only very few, about six,

12:30.345 --> 12:32.725
he heard most all of the detained cases.

12:32.905 --> 12:37.285
So we find a, a, a real division between the judges,

12:37.285 --> 12:39.685
which allows us to then compare the backgrounds

12:39.745 --> 12:42.565
of the judges who are deta in the detained courts versus

12:42.625 --> 12:43.685
the non detained courts.

12:44.145 --> 12:46.245
And importantly, we find when we compare these judges,

12:46.555 --> 12:48.565
that the judges who are assigned

12:48.645 --> 12:51.525
to the detained courts are more likely to be male,

12:51.755 --> 12:54.245
they're more likely to have served in the military,

12:54.625 --> 12:57.085
and they're more likely to have, in their,

12:57.225 --> 12:59.445
in their background to have served previously

12:59.445 --> 13:03.085
as a criminal court prosecutor, either in federal, state

13:03.305 --> 13:04.685
or a local city court.

13:05.635 --> 13:09.295
Now, we're not making, we're including in our analysis,

13:09.435 --> 13:12.095
any conclusion that this background is associated

13:12.125 --> 13:13.415
with a lower grant rate.

13:13.675 --> 13:16.135
But we do cite to a, a pretty extensive

13:16.135 --> 13:18.615
and growing body of scholarship that has found

13:18.615 --> 13:21.255
that precisely these characteristics, such

13:21.255 --> 13:23.655
as having served as a DHS prosecutor

13:23.795 --> 13:28.495
or having, having, being male, are, is associated

13:28.565 --> 13:33.095
with A-A-A-A-A greater rate of denying cases

13:33.355 --> 13:35.295
and a greater rate in particular of,

13:35.395 --> 13:37.095
of denying asylum claims.

13:37.275 --> 13:41.215
We hope that the article will be read by other scholars,

13:41.215 --> 13:43.775
scholars who are interested for, interested, for example,

13:44.115 --> 13:46.295
in judicial decision making, scholars

13:46.295 --> 13:48.175
who are interested in immigration courts.

13:48.515 --> 13:51.495
We think that identifying the detained immigration courts

13:51.595 --> 13:55.135
as a separate area for sustained inquiry,

13:55.275 --> 13:56.615
we hope will spur other,

13:56.705 --> 13:59.495
other related research in looking at the detained

13:59.495 --> 14:00.575
immigration courts.

14:01.275 --> 14:05.455
We also think that the article has relevance, for those

14:05.455 --> 14:09.335
who are interested in policy, a policy around detention

14:09.875 --> 14:11.575
around immigration courts,

14:11.575 --> 14:15.335
there's been increasing discussion of, the need to

14:16.305 --> 14:20.415
limit, reliance on immigration detention,

14:20.475 --> 14:23.815
and the need to reform the immigration courts, which people,

14:24.035 --> 14:27.535
sort of on both sides of the aisle agree, need some,

14:27.885 --> 14:29.655
some, some kind of a reform.

14:29.675 --> 14:32.215
And there's proposals that have been made in recent years,

14:32.715 --> 14:34.895
to try to execute some of those goals.

14:35.355 --> 14:38.575
Um, and we would like to inject into that discussion,

14:38.755 --> 14:42.415
an awareness about the courts that are really linking,

14:42.415 --> 14:46.335
detention to, to, to immigration courts

14:46.335 --> 14:48.015
and of this, of this separation

14:48.155 --> 14:50.335
and whether we should still have it and whether it,

14:50.635 --> 14:53.175
and how it threatens fundamental fairness

14:53.355 --> 14:55.815
and due process within the immigration courts.

00:00 - Detained Immigration Courts is actually the title of my new article that I just published with my co-author Steven Schafer in the Virginia Law Review. and detained immigration courts, as we use the term refute, refers to immigration courts. that here the cases of people who are detained,

00:18 - often detained during the entire time of the adjudication of their case. our, our focus on the detained immigration courts, is a new contribution to the scholarship. there's been a fair amount of scholarship now that has looked at the immigration courts overall, which is a set of, you know, now hundreds of, of federal judges who hear the cases of people who are, going through the immigration court system facing possible deportation from the United States,

00:49 - including the really important cases of people claiming asylum. they're not, these judges aren't part of, an article one or an Article three court, but instead they are federal judges who serve within an agency called the Executive Office for Immigration Review. inside the Department of Justice, there's also a separate body of scholarship that's sort of multidisciplinary and has been looking, at the, the,

01:15 - the, the companion piece. Then that's detention. So we have a growing system for detention in the United States that uses jails, prisons, and federal detention centers to house people at while they're going through, immigration proceedings. so what our article does that is unique is it really links together these discussions on immigration courts on the one hand and detention on the other to look inside,

01:42 - what we identify as a separate adjudication system and sort of assess and ask questions about the fundamental fairness and, due process issues that occur within those detained courts. The purpose is to really bring those two, pieces of scholarship together. And in doing so, we had several aims. in this article. I'd say the first major aim is, utilizing immigration court data to really just ask some basic descriptive questions about

02:11 - where are these courts, how have they evolved over time, and who has these case, their cases decided in these courts? The second main aim, is really sort of one to look at what are the different models when we say detained immigration courts, what falls within detained immigration courts and how have those, changes in court practices evolved over time? and finally, we really want to interrogate the, sort of the root structures and rules,

02:39 - and procedures that apply in detained immigration courts by doing interviews with practitioners in these courts, reviewing other public records that we, obtained through public records requests and through court observations, at detained immigration courts, around the country to try to get at some of those Key questions, about whether this really is a separate and segregated immigration court system. We rely on a range of data to do our analysis,

03:08 - but in prevent presenting a descriptive analysis, we are really relying on data that is available from the Executive Office of Immigration Review or EOIR, which is an administrative database of all of the cases that have been decided by judges within those courts. and those data, go back, many years and contained over 8.5 million individual cases, and we narrow that data down to, cases

03:38 - that were decided from 1983 to 2022 with 1983 being an important year, because that's when the federal agency EYR was created. and what we find just descriptively is that during that time period, since 1983, over 3.6 million people have had their cases start while they were in immigration detention. and importantly, the numbers have increased over time. So whereas in 1983, fewer than a thousand people had their

04:08 - case start within detention. this, the numbers reached an all time high by 2019 prior to the pandemic where nearly 200,000 people had their case, start within detention. We've also seen some variation within presidential administrations within the United States with the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration, having particularly high numbers, in detained courts with, as high as two in,

04:35 - in every three people having their, case begin in detention. Another part of the answer to your question, though is also, using that EOIR data to look descriptively at other fields to describe the people who have their cases heard there and here. we're able to rely on the fields for nationality, and more recently available fields for gender and for age. So using those fields, I think we're able to, you know, engage in some of the debates about,

05:08 - the criminalization of immigrants and show that it's really, you know, adult males, from Latin America who are disproportionately, assigned to these detained courts. In terms of nationality, we find during this time period from 83 to 2022, three and four, people who had cases initiated in detention were from the countries of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras. and when we compare that to non detained courts,

05:36 - we see a, a greater diversity of nationalities represented. we also see divergence in gender. Again, gender information was less available in earlier years, so we only rely on it starting in 2019, but we're able to see that in non detained courts. There's a fairly even split between women and girls on the one hand, and men and boys on the other who, who are, who are having cases heard in these courts. however, in detention,

06:02 - we really see a gendered pattern emerge, where we have only 23% of those cases who are, that are initiated in detention are of women and girls, primarily with people who had their cases initiated in the, in the migrant protection protocols or MPP, the Remain in Mexico program. and in terms of unaccompanied children, somewhat surprisingly, we do find children who have their case heard and decided in detention,

06:30 - but it was only 1% of the cases overall. We traditionally think of it immigration court, at least people who are familiar with immigration or immigration practitioners as being a downtown, urban court that is generally located in a government building, you know, maybe on the 13th floor. and you go there and have your, your, your case heard for asylum or for some other claim. and that model has existed for a long time

06:57 - and still exists. and those courts do hear the cases of detained individuals. but we've seen two major shifts during the time of our study. One is that fewer and fewer cases are heard in these downtown urban immigration courts. and more, as I'll talk about, are being moved to, rural areas and small cities, and moved inside detention centers.

07:20 - and additionally, the other pattern that we see is that major urban cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, where I'm sitting right now, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, these cities have actually created a separate court, often in a separate building and separate location to here detained courts, which, really goes to our, one of the major findings of this segregation between the court systems. So after thinking about, urban courts, another major model that I've already alluded

07:52 - to is the co-located courts, and these are courts that are actually housed within sites of detention. this is something that started to emerge in the 1960s, when the INS, which is the former immigration enforcement agency, started to, started to prioritize the building of more and more, more and more detention centers around the country that were exclusively run by the federal,

08:18 - by the federal government. and now we've seen more and more of these centers built, and especially more built, in, in the south, in the United States. So we see centers in general Louisiana, in Percel, Texas, and built into the, the very hardscape of these detention centers are immigration courts. just a few other models I could just quickly mention. Our court courts, the, the migrant protection protocols,

08:45 - courts are the remain in Mexico courts that are in tents or shipping containers along the border. immigration adjudication centers, which are remote sites Where judges are separated from the individuals who case their hearing. and oftentimes that these courts are focused on, on cases of detained individuals for part four of our paper, digs in more to institutional design elements of the courts. And we're particularly interested in

09:15 - how this separate court system that we identified the detained immigration courts, varies from its sister. it was a court system, the non detained court system. So there's many aspects to this analysis. I don't have time to get into all of it here. but one important distinction that we find is geography. So we're increasingly seeing detained cases and detained courts being located in rural areas and small cities outside of, you know, major urban areas.

09:47 - and we're also seeing, a different hard hardscape in these courts. So oftentimes the detained immigration courts don't really resemble what we might think of as a court, you know, they're inside a tent or a shipping container or a border patrol station or inside a prison or inside a jail. and, and so they don't really have the same kind of features as we might as, as we might see in a non detained court.

10:11 - There's also a different set of institutional rules that we identify. So for example, judge rules that require cases to be decided on a very expedited basis. Those rules have been as fast as the day, or as a week, but place the detained cases on a much faster timetable than non detained cases. We also see a heavier reliance on video adjudication, so where people aren't actually physically present in the

10:37 - courtroom, but rather are appearing from a remote location such as a detention center. and importantly, we, although immigration courts are supposed to be public, we see constrained public access to sites such as these, prisons or detention centers that have special rules and can be difficult for the public family members. Loved ones to enter a final, thing that, if I just have a little bit more time I, that I do think is important to mention is the issue

11:05 - of specialization that we identify. this has been something that, scholars have been really interested in. I know that Edward Chang in an important article on federal courts, written several years back, talked about the problematic issue of, of specialization. His focus was on the federal, court of appeals. and he posited the question of, you know, what would happen if, if we just took federal, courts of appeals judges and, assigned all the ones

11:32 - who have a background as a prosecutor, to criminal criminal cases. you know, he's, he writes in his article that, you know, regardless of your political leanings, this kind of lopsided assignment of ju judicial background, he says, would be almost unquestionably undesirable. So we were interested in sort of taking That insight and seeing what happens when we look at the backgrounds of immigration judges.

11:58 - And we were able to do this by gathering all of the biographies, judicial biographies of the judges in our study, and compare the judges who are assigned to these detained courts, to the judges who are just assigned to non detained courts. And importantly, we do find a segregation, in many cities, for example, in Boston we have, you know, almost 40 judges who've heard cases during the time period studied,

12:27 - but only very few, about six, he heard most all of the detained cases. So we find a, a, a real division between the judges, which allows us to then compare the backgrounds of the judges who are deta in the detained courts versus the non detained courts. And importantly, we find when we compare these judges, that the judges who are assigned to the detained courts are more likely to be male, they're more likely to have served in the military,

12:54 - and they're more likely to have, in their, in their background to have served previously as a criminal court prosecutor, either in federal, state or a local city court. Now, we're not making, we're including in our analysis, any conclusion that this background is associated with a lower grant rate. But we do cite to a, a pretty extensive and growing body of scholarship that has found that precisely these characteristics, such

13:21 - as having served as a DHS prosecutor or having, having, being male, are, is associated with A-A-A-A-A greater rate of denying cases and a greater rate in particular of, of denying asylum claims. We hope that the article will be read by other scholars, scholars who are interested for, interested, for example, in judicial decision making, scholars who are interested in immigration courts. We think that identifying the detained immigration courts

13:51 - as a separate area for sustained inquiry, we hope will spur other, other related research in looking at the detained immigration courts. We also think that the article has relevance, for those who are interested in policy, a policy around detention around immigration courts, there's been increasing discussion of, the need to limit, reliance on immigration detention, and the need to reform the immigration courts, which people,

14:24 - sort of on both sides of the aisle agree, need some, some, some kind of a reform. And there's proposals that have been made in recent years, to try to execute some of those goals. and we would like to inject into that discussion, an awareness about the courts that are really linking, detention to, to, to immigration courts and of this, of this separation and whether we should still have it and whether it, and how it threatens fundamental fairness

14:53 - and due process within the immigration courts.

Faculti AI can make mistakes