Body
San Francisco’s main immigration court shut its doors on May 1, ending a long‑standing venue that once handled the nation’s third‑highest number of asylum cases. The Associated Press noted that the court, which opened the year President Donald Trump was inaugurated with 21 judges, was left with only two judges after a cascade of firings, retirements and resignations.
The judge purge mirrors a broader campaign by the Trump administration to reshape the immigration‑court system. Since taking office, the Justice Department has dismissed or forced the retirement of roughly 100 immigration judges deemed “too liberal,” replacing many with military attorneys. The sweeping changes have accelerated denial rates and increased instances of immigrants being arrested at scheduled court appearances.
Data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse shows that the San Francisco court processed about 117,000 immigration matters and granted relief to almost three‑quarters of petitioners between 2019 and 2024—significantly higher than the 43 % national average. Analysts attribute the relatively generous outcomes to the city’s robust network of pro‑immigrant nonprofits and the high rate of legal representation for asylum seekers.
With the court’s closure, the bulk of its caseload was moved to a federal courthouse in Concord, a city roughly 30 miles (48 km) away that opened two years ago to alleviate San Francisco’s backlog. Security at the Concord site is strict; armed guards screen every entrant, cell phones are turned off, and only water in transparent bottles is allowed. Immigration attorney Judah Lakin, who practices in Oakland and teaches at UC Berkeley School of Law, described the logistical challenges, noting that a brief hearing in Concord can require more than two hours of travel. He added, “I think that’s on purpose. That’s by design. It’s part of the strategy,” emphasizing his belief that these obstacles are intentional.
Former immigration judge Jeremiah Johnson, who was dismissed in November, said the court’s reputation made it a target. “It was a vibrant legal scene and so I think if you were looking to target a court you would have to look at what San Francisco stands for,” he said. He also argued that judges are not fired for their case outcomes: “You don’t fire judges if you disagree with the way they’re handling a case, that’s not how courts work. If you disagree, you appeal that decision,” Johnson said.
Former judge Dana Leigh Marks, who retired in 2021 after 35 years on the bench, called the closure “heartbreaking” and framed it as part of a larger effort to undermine due process. “It’s all a part of big ways and little ways that the Trump administration is trying to get non‑citizens out of the country,” she said.
The shutdown leaves asylum seekers in a state of prolonged legal limbo, with fewer hearings, longer travel distances and an environment of uncertainty that advocates say heightens the risk of deportation. The episode underscores how the administration’s aggressive restructuring of the immigration courts is reshaping the landscape of asylum adjudication across the United States.