Christopher Day, a U.S. Army Reserve judge advocate general officer, is a former federal immigration judge. He was ultimately removed from his position after just over a month on the bench. He was dismissed sometime around December 2nd. This event has called attention to the role that political ideology plays in driving outcomes within immigration courts. Day began his own new assignment to the immigration court in Annandale, Virginia, at the end of October. He had been appointed to hear cases only on a temporary basis.
In his short tenure as an immigration judge, Day issued rulings that were at odds with the Trump administration’s deport-them-all strategy. In November, he issued asylum to migrants six times in a single month. This paltry only represented 8 percent of the eleven First Amendment cases he happened to hear that month. This outcome is particularly notable as favorable rulings for migrants have become increasingly rare amid a national push to expedite and streamline immigration processes.
The National Association of Immigration Judges first announced Day’s dismissal. The letter writers pointed out that this rapid action, only five weeks into his tenure, suggests ideological reasons for his removal. Dana Leigh Marks, a long-time leader for the National Association of Immigration Judges, said she was shocked by the abrupt firing.
“It is hard to imagine someone being fired so quickly, after five weeks on the bench, unless it was for ideological reasons.” – Dana Leigh Marks
Day’s approach to his role appeared at odds with the administration’s efforts to reduce a backlog of approximately 3.8 million asylum cases. His rulings stand in stark contrast to the administration’s approach to the SDMP. Their goal is to stop positive resolutions for migrants, all while trying to reform the nation’s 75 immigration courts.
The administration has been condemned for the firing of nearly 100 judges considered too left-wing in their decisions. Moreover, it has loosened qualification standards, enabling lawyers with no specialized legal training to become “Deportation Judges.” In addition, this step has alarmed advocates about the implications it has on the due process and fairness of our immigration system.
Christopher Day’s decisions during his short term serve as a reflection of the current contentious climate surrounding immigration law in the United States. His positive rulings are a huge departure from the administration’s stated goals. Further still, they highlight the rub between judicial independence and political, or executive, direction.
The immigration courts are facing increasing external pressure to expedite case disposals. Day’s dismissal raises critical questions about where these courts are headed, and how they will treat the people who seek refuge in the United States. This administration has gone particularly hard on immigration. This has created a firestorm of controversy over how to carry out enforcement with compassion toward asylum seekers.