Abstract
The Trump administration implemented a controversial performance quota policy for immigration judges in October 2018. The policy’s political motivations were clear: to pressure immigration judges to order more immigration removals and deportations as quickly as possible. Previous attempts by U.S. presidents to control immigration judges were ineffective, but this quota policy was different because it credibly threatened judges’ job security and promotion opportunities if they failed to follow the policy. Our analysis of hundreds of thousands of judicial decisions before and after the policy’s implementation demonstrates that the quota policy successfully led immigration judges to issue more immigration removal orders (both in absentia and merits orders). The post-policy change in behavior was strongest among those judges who were less inclined, pre-policy, to issue immigration removal decisions. These findings have important implications for immigration judge independence, due process protections for noncitizens, and presidential efforts to control the federal bureaucracy.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Reference109 articles.
1. Chyn, Eric , and Haggag, Kareem . 2019. “Moved to Vote: The Long-Run Effects of Neighborhoods on Political Participation.” Working Paper Series, NBER. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3496490.
2. Board, Editorial . 2021. “Immigration Courts Aren’t Real Courts. Time to Change that.” New York Times, May 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/opinion/sunday/immigration-courts-trump-biden.html.
3. Osuna, Juan P . 2015. “Statement of Juan P. Osuna, Director of Executive Office for Immigration Review, United States Department of Justice.” U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Hearing on “The 2014 Humanitarian Crisis at Our Border: A Review of the Government’s Response to Unaccompanied Minors One Year Later.” https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Osuna-2015-07-07.pdf.
4. Decision Making in the Hidden Judiciary: Institutions, Recruitment, and Responsiveness Among U.S. Administrative Law Judges