Immigration courts, like other federal courts, are generally open to the public, with some exceptions. But volunteers who observe immigration proceedings locally and across the country told WRKF they’re consistently being denied access.
Observers in Baton Rouge were one of the groups that sounded the alarm. Since the court opened in October of last year, it has flipped between being closed to observers, to being partially open, closing again and finally to being fully open.
Bonnie Byland is court observer in the Baton Rouge court with immigrants rights advocacy group Mision Migrantes. She said for the longest time, observers were only let into largely procedural master calendar hearings and barred from watching individual hearings — which include asylum hearings.
“ We were never allowed into an individual hearing, although we did request,” she said. “We were told the answer's no, the judges do not allow that.”
This practice changed, however, after Byland signed on to a federal lawsuit filed by advocates in Minnesota, alleging that there was a policy to deny observers access to immigration courts. The suit itself contains sworn testimony from observers and advocates from across the country in the pursuit of showing that instances like what happened in Baton Rouge are not isolated incidents, but rather demonstrate a pattern and practice of denying access.
A representative from the DOJ declined comment on this story, but the agency has maintained in court it’s following federal rules which say proceedings are presumed open to the public.
In the government’s response, the head judge in Baton Rouge testified the court was presumed open, and she sent a note to her staff reminding them of that.
Byland said the first time she was allowed to observe an individual hearing after the decision was reinvigorating.
“ Now, the purpose is to try to assure that there's some sense of transparency and accountability,” she said.
The larger picture
Observers act as a neutral party taking note of proceedings. They file their notes with organizations at both the local and national level and create a data set to make it easier to spot trends or identify the effects of new policy from President Donald Trump’s administration.
Byland said she’s been trained to take note of things that are different or feel wrong.
”Because that information could indicate that there's a new trend taking place nationwide,” Byland said.
The work, however, is not always looking for things to go wrong. Observers are trained to be objective, so what’s going right in the system gets highlighted, too.
But this only happens if observers can get in, and people are often turned away.
“There are courts where access seems more accessible, and there are courts where access is much more problematic,” said Katie Fleming, director of public education & engagement with the Acacia Center for Justice — one of the biggest organizations that works with observers across the country.
Access is different from court to court and judge to judge, Fleming said. It’s especially hard when observers want to join a hearing online. Courts use a video conferencing platform similar to Zoom called WebEx to conduct hearings.
Most of the time there is at least one person on the WebEx call, but it is not uncommon for hearings to be totally online. Fleming described hearings held predominantly, or totally, on WebEx as “the most problematic” when it comes to access for observers.
Official federal guidance says WebEx is only for people involved in the case, unless it’s completely online and there is no physical courtroom.
This leaves many immigration hearings across the country often happening without observers. Fleming said it is a concern with how the courts are structured.
“It's one of the few independent accountability mechanisms that's left to keep an eye on the immigration court system that is really driven and overseen by the executive branch,” Fleming said.
With the Trump administration trying to decrease immigration court’s extensive backlog, massive changes are being made very quickly, Fleming said — like judges deciding asylum cases on the spot without a trial.
Gracie Willis, an attorney for the National Immigration Project — a legal advocacy organization, said court observing is protected under the First Amendment, whether you agree with what the administration is doing or not.
“This is something that our tax dollars are paying for,” Willis said. “We should have an opportunity to observe and have opinions about.”
Most people don’t have time to sit in long, early morning hearings to see how these courts are run, she said, so observers matter “to help translate that into information that people, everyday folks can understand.”
Baton Rouge isn’t the only court that had judges move to open their court. After the federal lawsuit, judges nationwide filed responses reaffirming they were presumed open. Willis described it as posturing.
“The government is gonna do what they can to combat a case, and sometimes what that means is they will change their behavior in the course of litigation,” she said. “(Without a ruling), they are free to change their behavior back once that court case is gone.”
