One thing uncommon is occurring in U.S. immigration courts. Authorities legal professionals are refusing to give their names during public hearings.
In June 2025, Immigration Decide ShaSha Xu in New York Metropolis reportedly told legal professionals in her courtroom: “We’re not likely doing names publicly.” Solely the federal government legal professionals’ names have been hidden – the immigrants’ attorneys needed to give their names as common. Xu cited privateness issues, saying, “Issues these days have modified.”
When one immigration lawyer objected that the courtroom report can be incomplete with out the federal government legal professional’s title, Xu reportedly refused to supply it. In one other case, New York immigration Decide James McCarthy in July referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorney as merely “Department” all through the listening to.
New York immigration Decide Shirley Lazare-Raphael informed The Intercept that some ICE attorneys consider it’s “dangerous to state their names publicly.” This follows a broader sample of ICE brokers wearing masks throughout arrests to cover their identities.
This secrecy violates a elementary precept that has protected People for hundreds of years: open courts. Right here’s how these courts function and why the precept governing them issues.
AP Photo/Olga Fedorova
‘Presumption of openness’
The U.S. authorized system is constructed on openness, with a number of layers of authorized safety that assure public entry to courtroom proceedings.
This custom of open courts developed as a direct rejection of secret judicial proceedings that had been used to abuse energy in England. The infamous Star Chamber operated in secret from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries, initially attempting individuals “too powerful to be brought before ordinary common-law courts.”
However the Star Chamber finally grew to become a software of oppression, utilizing torture to acquire confessions and punishing jurors who dominated towards the Crown. Parliament abolished it in 1641 after widespread abuses.
By the point American colonial courts have been established, the response towards the Star Chamber had already formed English authorized pondering towards openness. American courts adopted this principle of transparency from the start, rejecting the secretive proceedings that had enabled abuse.
In the present day, the time period “star chamber” refers to any secret courtroom continuing that appears grossly unfair or is used to persecute people.
Within the U.S., courts have repeatedly emphasised that “justice faces its gravest threat when courts dispense it secretly.” The First Modification provides the general public a proper to look at judicial proceedings. The Supreme Courtroom has dominated that “a presumption of openness inheres within the very nature of a felony trial under our system of justice.”
Each federal appeals courtroom has acknowledged that this constitutional proper extends to civil cases too, with some exceptions reminiscent of defending “the parties’ privacy, confidential business information, or trade secrets.” Federal courtroom guidelines require that trials be “conducted in open court” and that witness testimony be “taken in open court unless otherwise provided.”
Many state constitutions additionally assure open courts – reminiscent of Oregon’s mandate that “no court shall be secret.”
Whereas there’s no express regulation requiring attorneys to be publicly named, there’s additionally no coverage permitting their names to be stored secret. The presumption is at all times towards openness.
In response to those latest developments, regulation professor Elissa Steglich mentioned that she’d “never heard of someone in open court not being identified,” and that failing to establish an legal professional might impair accountability “if there are unethical or skilled issues.”
Guidelines for anonymity
Courts generally permit anonymity, however solely in particular circumstances.
Juries will be nameless when there’s “substantial danger of harm or undue influence,” as authorized skilled Michael Crowell writes – like in high-profile organized crime instances or when defendants have tried to intimidate witnesses earlier than. Even then, the legal professionals nonetheless know the jurors’ names.
Equally, events to a lawsuit can generally use pseudonyms like “Jane Doe” when the case entails highly sensitive matters reminiscent of sexual abuse, or when there’s an actual threat of bodily retaliation.
However these rare exceptions require cautious courtroom overview.
What’s occurring with ICE attorneys is completely different. There’s no formal courtroom ruling permitting it, no particular security findings and no established authorized course of.
Immigration courts have fewer protections
Immigration courts function in a different way from common federal courts. They’re so-called “administrative courts” which can be a part of the manager department, not the judicial department.
These courts determine claims involving a person’s proper to remain within the U.S., both when the federal government seeks to remove somebody from the nation for violating immigration regulation or when a person seeks to remain within the nation by the asylum course of.
Immigration judges lack the lifetime job protections that common federal judges have. As executive branch government employees, they are often employed and fired, identical to different Division of Justice workers.
Folks in immigration courtroom even have fewer procedural protections than felony defendants. They don’t have any proper to court-appointed counsel and should signify themselves except they’ll afford to rent an legal professional. The vast majority of immigrants seem without an attorney. Outcomes are higher for many who can afford to rent counsel.
Immigration courtroom data are additionally less accessible to the general public than different federal courtroom proceedings.
For years, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation’s highest immigration courtroom, made lower than 1% of its opinions publicly obtainable. A federal court ruled that public disclosure was required; the Board of Immigration Appeals now posts its decisions online.
Nevertheless, decrease immigration courtroom choices are rarely made public.
As a result of immigration courts function with much less oversight than common federal courts, public remark turns into extra vital.
Open courts aren’t nearly authorized process – they’re about democracy itself. When the general public can observe how justice is run, it builds confidence that the system is truthful.
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Courtroom watching protects transparency
Court watching has change into an vital manner for residents to make sure due course of is honored, particularly in immigration instances.
Observers can monitor whether or not correct authorized procedures are being adopted. They’ll look ahead to indicators that attorneys are ready, treating individuals respectfully and following courtroom guidelines – no matter whether or not these attorneys establish themselves.
Observers assist observe tendencies reminiscent of lack of authorized illustration, language obstacles or procedural unfairness that may inform advocacy for reforms. This type of public oversight is particularly vital in immigration courtroom, the place individuals typically don’t have legal professionals and will not perceive their rights.
When neighborhood members bear witness to those proceedings, it helps make sure the system operates pretty and transparently.
Skilled ethics and accountability
As a law professor who runs a regulation faculty’s Center for Professional Ethics, I can say that whereas there’s no particular regulation forcing ICE attorneys to establish themselves, they’re nonetheless certain by rules of professional conduct that require accountability and transparency.
State bar associations have clear requirements about legal professional conduct in courtroom proceedings. The American Bar Affiliation’s Mannequin Guidelines of Skilled Conduct emphasize that legal professionals are “officers of the legal system” with duties to uphold its integrity.
Immigration judges, regardless of being authorities workers moderately than lifetime-tenured federal judges, are additionally certain by judicial conduct codes that require them to uphold public confidence within the justice system. When judges permit or encourage anonymity with out formal procedures or security findings, they threat violating these moral obligations.
Bar associations can examine skilled conduct violations and impose sanctions starting from reprimands to suspension or disbarment. Whereas enforcement towards federal authorities legal professionals has historically been uncommon, sustained documentation by courtroom observers can present the proof wanted for formal complaints.
Whereas authorities attorneys, judges and different courtroom personnel might face actual safety concerns, hiding their identities in open courtroom is unprecedented and breaks with centuries of authorized custom that requires accountability and transparency in our justice system.
As pressure mounts to course of immigration instances shortly, courts are ethically and legally certain to make sure that velocity doesn’t come on the expense of elementary equity and transparency.
