Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]
- Committees
- Budget Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 5, 2026
Bottom line
The bill fundamentally shifts immigration adjudication from an executive branch agency to an independent federal court system, aiming to enhance judicial independence and due process.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the United States Immigration Courts as an independent Article I court of record, separate from the executive branch. It transfers most functions of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) from the Department of Justice to this new court system, which will consist of appellate, trial, and administrative divisions. The bill outlines the appointment, qualifications, terms, salaries, and removal procedures for immigration appeals and trial judges, and establishes new rules for jurisdiction, proceedings, and appellate review.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that housing immigration courts within the Department of Justice creates an inherent conflict of interest, undermining judicial independence and due process for individuals. They contend that an independent Article I court would professionalize the system, ensure fairer and more consistent adjudications, reduce political influence, and ultimately improve the efficiency and integrity of immigration proceedings.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that moving immigration courts outside the executive branch could hinder the government's ability to enforce immigration laws effectively and efficiently, potentially leading to increased costs and a loss of executive control over a critical aspect of national sovereignty. Concerns could also be raised about the politicization of judicial appointments to the new court and the potential for judicial overreach in immigration policy.
The bill is detailed and requires careful reading to understand the significant structural and procedural changes proposed for the immigration adjudication system.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 601
Establishment of United States Immigration Courts
This provision establishes the United States Immigration Courts as an Article I court of record, making it independent of the executive branch. It divides the court into an appellate division, a trial division, and an administrative division, with a principal office in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area but allowing courts to sit anywhere in the United States.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing an independent Article I court is crucial for ensuring due process and fairness in immigration cases, removing the perception and reality of political influence that currently exists when courts are housed within the executive branch.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that this move could complicate immigration enforcement efforts by separating the adjudicatory function from the executive agencies responsible for enforcement, potentially leading to inefficiencies or conflicting policy objectives.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for judicial independence and due process against concerns about executive control over immigration policy and the potential for increased administrative complexity.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 601(b) and (c)
Appointment and Structure of Appeals and Trial Judges
The appellate division will consist of 21 immigration appeals judges, appointed by the President with Senate consent for 15-year terms, with one serving as chief judge. The trial division will have immigration trial judges appointed by the appellate division for 15-year terms, with chief trial judges overseeing geographical areas. This establishes a new, independent judiciary for immigration cases.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 602(a) and (b)
Qualifications and Appointment Factors for Immigration Judges
This section sets stringent qualifications for all immigration judges, requiring at least 10 years of bar membership, integrity, commitment to equal justice, and demonstrated legal ability. It also mandates that appointments be made without regard to protected characteristics or political affiliation, and encourages a balance of prior legal experience in immigration law from both public and private sectors.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 604
Jurisdiction of the Immigration Courts
The bill grants the appellate division jurisdiction over appeals from trial judges, certain DHS Secretary decisions, and attorney disciplinary matters. The trial division receives original jurisdiction over removal proceedings, lawful permanent residence rescissions, credible/reasonable fear reviews, asylum referrals, bond/custody/detention determinations, and reviews of unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed administrative actions. This consolidates immigration adjudication under the new court.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 621(c) and (d)
Contempt Authority and Assistance to the Court
Immigration judges are granted authority to sanction individuals with civil money penalties for obstructing justice or contempt of court. The bill also ensures the Immigration Courts receive assistance similar to other U.S. courts, including nationwide subpoena service and support from the U.S. Marshals Service for security, with the Marshals Service retaining final authority on security.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 623
Representation of Parties and Other Assistance
This section affirms the right to counsel for parties in Immigration Court proceedings (at no government expense). It also mandates the establishment of a program for qualified interpreters and a legal orientation program, through agreements with non-profit organizations, to provide basic legal information to parties.
Section 6
Application Date and Transitional Provisions
This section sets the 'application date' for the new court's functions to begin, tied to the fiscal year and the appointment of at least three appeals judges. It establishes a four-year transition period during which existing EOIR immigration judges will serve as 'interim immigration trial judges' with full authority, receiving service credit and eligibility for benefits. It also outlines staggered terms for the initial appeals judges and procedures for appointing new trial judges.
Section 7
Institutional Transfer and Continuity of Proceedings
This section mandates the transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, liabilities, and appropriations of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to the new Immigration Courts on the application date, with exceptions for the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) and other non-essential functions. It also ensures that existing precedent decisions and rules remain in effect and that all pending cases are transferred without loss of rights or interruption of jurisdiction.
Prohibits individuals related by blood (first, second, or third degree) or marriage to an immigration appeals judge from being appointed as an immigration trial judge.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 602(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for ethics and conflict-of-interest rules, often placed within the relevant personnel sections.
Case for: Proponents would argue this prevents nepotism and potential conflicts of interest within the new court system, ensuring impartiality and public trust in judicial appointments.
Case against: No significant case against, as it's a standard ethical safeguard.
Estimated impact: Limits the pool of eligible candidates for trial judge positions, but likely affects a very small number of individuals.
Rules governing the use of video teleconferencing technology shall include a presumption *against* its use in proceedings where an alien's eligibility for relief from removal is being evaluated, unless requested by the alien.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 622(a)(5)
Why it matters:This detail is part of a list of rulemaking authorities, which is common. However, its specific impact on due process is significant.
Case for: Proponents would argue this protects due process by ensuring in-person hearings for critical relief applications, where credibility and direct interaction are often paramount, unless the alien prefers otherwise.
Case against: Some might argue that a presumption against video teleconferencing could slow down proceedings and increase logistical burdens, especially in areas with high caseloads or limited judicial resources.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on the efficiency and perceived fairness of relief proceedings, affecting thousands of cases annually.
If the Government appeals a decision of the appellate division to a U.S. court of appeals, and the alien party is financially unable to obtain adequate representation, counsel shall be provided through the plan for representation on appeal under section 3006A of title 18, United States Code.
Section 2, adding INA Title VI, Sec. 625(d)
Why it matters:This is a technical conforming amendment to existing federal law regarding indigent defense, often placed in such sections. However, its impact on access to justice is substantial.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a vital safeguard for due process, ensuring that financially vulnerable aliens are not disadvantaged when the government appeals a favorable decision, thereby leveling the playing field in federal appellate review.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against providing counsel for indigent parties in federal appeals, though some might raise general concerns about the cost to the federal budget.
Estimated impact: Provides critical legal assistance to indigent aliens in federal appeals, potentially impacting the outcomes of government-initiated appeals.
For each fiscal year, the budget of the Immigration Courts shall be established by the Immigration Courts, without review or modification by the executive branch, and shall be included in the budget of the President as submitted.
Section 4(a)
Why it matters:While critical for judicial independence, the budgeting process is often detailed in technical sections. Its placement here is standard for establishing the financial autonomy of a new federal entity.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is fundamental to the court's independence, preventing the executive branch from exerting undue influence through budgetary control. It ensures the court has the resources necessary to fulfill its mandate without political interference.
Case against: Critics might argue that removing executive branch review over the court's budget could lead to unchecked spending or a lack of accountability, potentially increasing costs to taxpayers without sufficient oversight.
Estimated impact: Grants significant financial autonomy to the new Immigration Courts, ensuring its operational independence from the executive branch.