The Trump administration is moving to place military lawyers in temporary immigration judge roles—framed as a rapid response to an overloaded court system, but criticized as a risky experiment with due process. In the last week, defense officials confirmed plans to detail as many as 600 military lawyers to immigration courts for stints of up to 179 days, after the Justice Department broadened who can be tapped as a temporary immigration judge. ABC NewsAP NewsGovernment Executive

Background on the Initiative — military lawyers

At its core, the plan is a surge maneuver: assign military lawyers to preside over immigration hearings to cut through the backlog. News outlets report that the Pentagon has authorized phased deployments (initially ~150 attorneys) with assignments capped at 179 days but potentially renewable—an approach officials say can “augment existing resources” quickly without creating permanent billets. Supporters argue the move is a lawful, time-limited detail that keeps cases moving in a system that has struggled to keep pace. ABC NewsFederal News Network

The Justice Department recently cleared the path by issuing a rule that allows its leadership to designate “any attorney” as a temporary immigration judge for six-month stints. That regulatory change, paired with Defense Department details, explains why military lawyers are suddenly central to the conversation about immigration court capacity. Government Executive

Why this is happening now

Caseloads are at historic highs. By 2025, TRAC’s live dashboard showed well over 3 million pending matters nationwide—an administrative choke point with human consequences: years-long waits, inconsistent calendars, and limited attorney availability for many respondents. Against that reality, embedding military lawyers looks, to its backers, like a practical stopgap. To critics, it looks like a shortcut that could compromise the quality and independence of adjudication. TracReports

What the plan does—and what military lawyers would decide

Under the plan described publicly, military lawyers would sit as temporary immigration judges hearing a mix of master calendar and individual merits hearings, focusing on routine dockets where standardized procedures might allow faster throughput. The pitch is simple: military lawyers are already courtroom-tested; they understand evidentiary rules; and they’re accustomed to high-tempo casework and strict deadlines.

But immigration law is its own universe. Unlike courts-martial governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, immigration proceedings blend administrative law with international protection standards, constantly evolving case law, and complex relief eligibility tests. The learning curve is steep even for seasoned litigators. Federal News Network’s coverage underscored the concern from experts that brief training blocks may not be enough to equip military lawyers for adjudicating asylum credibility, nexus, or protection bars—issues that commonly decide outcomes. Federal News Network

Do military lawyers have the right expertise?

Some certainly will—many Judge Advocates arrive with impressive civilian practice backgrounds. Still, system-level integrity depends on more than individual talent. The American Bar Association has long maintained that immigration adjudication should be insulated from political branches by transforming it into an independent Article I court. That recommendation is not about any single detail program; it’s about building a structure where judicial independence, consistent training, and transparent accountability are baked in. The ABA’s 2019 update reiterated that independence is the surest path to impartiality and efficiency. American Bar Association+1ABA Journal

Implications for people with cases in court

For asylum seekers and families in removal proceedings, the stakes are life-altering. If military lawyers are rotated in to accelerate calendars, two competing realities emerge:

Throughput gains could reduce wait times, which often stretch for years. Faster resolution can be merciful—especially for people with strong claims who need status to work, reunite family, or stabilize their lives.
Uneven adjudication risk could rise if temporary judges lack deep grounding in the nuances of immigration protection law, country conditions, and trauma-informed hearing practices. A brisk docket is not, by itself, a fair docket. Inadequate expertise can amplify denial rates or generate avoidable appeals and remands, paradoxically slowing the system.

The backlog itself is not just a number; it’s a human queue. TRAC’s data illustrate how sustained influxes, policy changes, and staffing swings compound delay. A surge of military lawyers might address the symptom—time to hearing—but not the underlying structural drivers: fragmented case management, fluctuating enforcement pipelines, and chronic underinvestment in trained, career immigration judges and support staff. TracReports

Due process and perceived independence

Immigration judges are part of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), not Article III courts. That makes the perception of independence especially sensitive. Placing military lawyers—whose careers are nested in a command hierarchy—on the bench, even temporarily, can blur lines for respondents and the public. The administration insists these details are lawful and bounded; critics warn that normalizing cross-branch judicial staffing erodes the firewall between military authority and civilian justice over time. Those concerns are precisely why bar groups keep pushing for Article I status. American Bar Association

What would “doing this right” look like?

If the administration proceeds, several guardrails could mitigate risk:

Targeted dockets. Assign military lawyers to well-defined calendars (e.g., bond redeterminations or uncontested matters) where discretion is narrower and training can be more focused.
Robust training and mentorship. Pair temporary judges with experienced immigration judges; require structured modules on asylum law, CAT protection, credibility analysis, trauma-informed practices, and interpreter management.
Transparent metrics. Publish assignment criteria, training hours, appeal rates, and remand statistics for dockets handled by military lawyers. Sunshine helps ensure quality, not only speed.
Sunset clauses with audits. Keep the 179-day cap real. Before any extensions, release an independent audit of outcomes and litigant experience to demonstrate that the program improves both efficiency and fairness. ABC News

Alternatives that address the root causes

Even the most carefully executed detail program is a bridge, not a road. Durable fixes include:

Hire and retain more career immigration judges and staff with specialized training and manageable caseloads—so that speed does not hinge on emergency details.
Legislative restructuring. Move to an Article I immigration court, as urged by the ABA, to align incentives with judicial independence and professional development across the bench. American Bar Association+1
Modernize case management. Expand remote hearing infrastructure where appropriate, improve scheduling tools, and standardize continuance practices to reduce unnecessary churn.
Triage and prosecutorial discretion. Focus courtroom resources on cases where removal is genuinely prioritized; resolve low-priority matters outside adversarial hearings when appropriate.

Bottom line

Deploying military lawyers as immigration judges is an extraordinary step that speaks to a real problem: a court system laboring under historic volume. The question is not whether military lawyers can help—it’s whether this fix, as designed, safeguards due process, judicial independence, and public confidence. With strict limits, robust training, and radical transparency, the experiment might buy time. But building a court that doesn’t need borrowed judges still requires the structural reforms experts have urged for years. ABA Journal

Connect with the Author

Curious about the inspiration behind The Unmaking of America or want to follow the latest news and insights from J.T. Mercer? Dive deeper and stay connected through the links below—then explore Vera2 for sharp, timely reporting.

About the Author

Discover more about J.T. Mercer’s background, writing journey, and the real-world events that inspired The Unmaking of America. Learn what drives the storytelling and how this trilogy came to life.
[Learn more about J.T. Mercer]

NRP Dispatch Blog

Stay informed with the NRP Dispatch blog, where you’ll find author updates, behind-the-scenes commentary, and thought-provoking articles on current events, democracy, and the writing process.
[Read the NRP Dispatch]

Vera2 — News & Analysis

Looking for the latest reporting, explainers, and investigative pieces? Visit Vera2, North River Publications’ news and analysis hub. Vera2 covers politics, civil society, global affairs, courts, technology, and more—curated with context and built for readers who want clarity over noise.
[Explore Vera2]

Whether you’re interested in the creative process, want to engage with fellow readers, or simply want the latest updates, these resources are the best way to stay in touch with the world of The Unmaking of America—and with the broader news ecosystem at Vera2.

Free Chapter

Begin reading The Unmaking of America today and experience a story that asks: What remains when the rules are gone, and who will stand up when it matters most? Join the Fall of America mailing list below to receive the first chapter of The Unmaking of America for free and stay connected for updates, bonus material, and author news.

Read the first chapter free

Vera2, Investigations & Corruption

Trump Officials Ask Military Lawyers to Serve as Immigration