A Democratic bill with 10 Democratic cosponsors · See all 10 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill establishes the United States Immigration Courts as an independent court of record under Article I of the Constitution. The court system is organized into three divisions: appellate, trial, and administrative. It creates specific requirements for the appointment, terms, and salaries of immigration appeals and trial judges. The legislation also outlines the jurisdiction of these divisions and establishes procedures for judicial review and the transition of existing functions. Additionally, it provides a framework for court budgets, employee appointments, and annual workload reporting.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +7
Would immigrants be better off under this?
The bill enhances protections through independent judicial review, access to qualified interpreters, and legal orientation programs.
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates the publication of precedent decisions and various public reports regarding court workloads.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill requires procedures for waiving court fees in cases of financial hardship.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
The bill mandates that all immigration judges must retire at age 80.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Independence from the Executive Branch: The Immigration Courts would be independent of the executive branch of the United States Government, rather than being an agency of it (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Standardized Judge Qualifications: The bill requires immigration judges to have specific qualifications, including at least 10 years of legal experience in a Federal court or a State's highest court, a reputation for integrity, and a commitment to equal justice (Section 602(a)).
-
Enhanced Representation Rights: Individuals in proceedings have the privilege of being represented by counsel of their choosing at no expense to the Federal Government (Section 623(a)).
-
Access to Qualified Interpreters: The bill mandates the establishment of a program to ensure the use of qualified interpreters in proceedings (Section 623(b)).
-
Legal Orientation Support: The courts are required to maintain a legal orientation program to explain procedures and provide basic legal information to individuals (Section 623(c)).
-
Protection of Confidential Information: The bill requires the preservation of confidentiality for matters involving national security, asylum, and claims under the Violence Against Women Act (Section 624(b)(2)).
-
Procedures for Financial Hardship: The bill requires that rules for collecting court fees include procedures for waivers in cases of financial hardship (Section 622(c)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Potential for Temporary Resource Changes: The appellate division has the authority to appoint temporary immigration trial judges and establish temporary court facilities if resources are deemed insufficient (Section 603(a)).
-
Mandatory Retirement Age: All immigration judges are required to retire upon reaching 80 years of age (Section 602(g)(1)).
-
Restrictions on Judicial Practice: Immigration judges are prohibited from engaging in the practice of law or any other occupation that is inconsistent with their duties (Section 602(e)(3)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill enhances protections through independent judicial review, access to qualified interpreters, and legal orientation programs. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill requires procedures for waiving court fees in cases of financial hardship. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill mandates that all immigration judges must retire at age 80.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — The bill establishes a more independent and standardized judicial structure for immigration proceedings. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill requires that qualified candidates be identified without regard to race or national origin.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates the publication of precedent decisions and various public reports regarding court workloads.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill establishes a structured budget process for the new independent court system.
- 7/22/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 10 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Brian SchatzDemocrat · Hawaii
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon