Lines stretched out the front door of courthouses, while overflow seating was set up in hallways to accommodate the influx. Inside, classroom-style exchanges have become the norm, with judges asking groups of people to raise their hands in response to generic questions about their cases. These scenes are playing out in immigration courts across the country as the Trump administration increasingly turns to mass hearings in an effort to push more cases through the cumbersome immigration system.
These so-called “mega master” hearings—which pack upwards of 50 to 100 cases into a single proceeding—are designed to cut down the massive backlog of cases in immigration courts managed by the Justice Department, according to federal officials. The hearings, which have seen a notable increase since May, coincide with a surge in detentions and deportations in recent weeks, based on data from U.S. authorities. This shift also aligns with administration policies that have made it easier for immigration officials to deny asylum claims.
The controversial hearings are preliminary in nature and offer individuals an opportunity to enter pleas or request relief, such as asylum. They are similar to arraignments in criminal court and are typically the first time people appear before an immigration judge. Master hearings are short proceedings in which judges review the government’s charges and ask what, if any, legal relief an immigrant is seeking. However, while master hearings involving 20 to 30 people have been commonplace for years, the sheer size of these recent sessions is alarming immigration attorneys who describe them as intentionally rushed and chaotic.
One of the central concerns is that immigrants are having their scheduled court dates moved up by months or even years, leaving them little time to prepare for their hearings or secure legal counsel. Critics also argue that the rapid pace of the proceedings, coupled with widespread confusion over how they operate, has resulted in more people missing their court dates. Those who do not show up are often subject to removal orders. “This will push many more people into deportation proceedings,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.
Supporters of the strategy argue that the effort could significantly reduce the more than 3.4 million cases currently pending in immigration court, a system long strained by severe backlogs. “This is a very effective way to reduce the backlog,” said Matt O’Brien, a former immigration judge and the deputy executive director of the Immigration Reform Law Institute. In a statement, the Department of Justice emphasized: “Reducing the immigration court backlog remains one of the highest priorities for this administration.”
As of June, immigration courts were experiencing a backlog of over 3.4 million cases, according to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the courts. That figure is down from 3.7 million a year earlier and a peak of 3.9 million during the final year of the Biden administration, which oversaw a more than doubling of the backlog since 2021. “They’ve made great progress at driving down the backlog,” said Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, noting that pending cases decreased in fiscal year 2025 for the first time in over a decade.
In recent months, immigration attorneys have reported a sharp increase in the number of large-scale master hearings across the country. Joseph Perez, an immigration attorney based in Virginia, noted that he has represented clients in hearings alongside 20 to 30 other people. “These larger hearings go on all day,” he told. “It’s unreasonable.” In Chicago, immigration lawyers described hearings involving nearly 200 people before a single immigration judge, with respondents crowding the hallways and spilling out of the courtroom.
“The sheer scale of these ‘mega master’ hearings is truly unprecedented,” said Kiki Moseley, chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s immigration court committee. The logistical strain is evident, and some supporters of the larger hearings are now concerned that the format could cause immigration judges to experience severe burnout. “There is a danger there,” acknowledged Andrew Arthur, noting that high-volume dockets can lead to systemic fatigue.
Burnout was a cited factor for former immigration judge Elizabeth Treacy, who resigned on June 22 after presiding over three large master hearings. Experts suggest that whenever there is a high volume of cases in any field, it increases the possibility for error due to fatigue and the repetitive nature of the work. The Executive Office for Immigration Review stated that it evaluates all immigration judges, regardless of their background, on factors such as conduct, impartiality, adherence to the law, productivity, and professionalism.
Despite the concerns regarding due process, Arthur maintained that the government still holds the burden of proving that a hearing notice was served at an immigrant’s last known address. “There’s a lot of due process built into the system,” he said. Nevertheless, the rapid acceleration of these cases remains a point of intense debate among legal professionals, who worry that the speed of the “mega master” system is coming at the expense of fairness and individual legal representation.
The administration continues to defend the practice as a necessary tool to manage a system that has been overwhelmed for years. By consolidating preliminary appearances, the government aims to clear the docket of cases that might otherwise languish for years. However, for the individuals caught in the middle of these mass proceedings, the experience is often characterized by confusion and a lack of meaningful access to the court process.
As the policy continues, the impact on the overall immigration system remains to be seen. While the backlog numbers are trending downward, the human cost of these proceedings—measured in missed opportunities for legal relief and increased deportation orders—continues to draw sharp criticism from advocacy groups and attorneys who believe the current approach undermines the integrity of the immigration court system.
Over 1,300 such hearings were held in June alone, a nearly threefold jump from the same period in 2025, according to data analyzed by Mobile Pathways, a nonprofit that tracks immigration court data.
Once the proceedings began, the ones in the back struggled to hear judges as they asked questions like “How many of you have a lawyer” and “Are you claiming asylum?”
Burnout is what happened to former immigration judge Elizabeth Treacy, who resigned on June 22 after presiding over three large master hearings in Chicago that each listed between 130 and 150 people.
Meanwhile, more children are being brought in front of immigration judges for mass hearings, including unaccompanied minors, legal observers say.
Judges will then schedule hearings where requests for asylum and other forms of relief are litigated.
“I never wanted to make a mistake in those kinds of circumstances.”
“Unnecessary delay hurts both aliens with meritorious claims and the American public who wish to see aliens with non-meritorious claims removed as quickly as possible,” it added.
“As it continues to add new immigration judges, EOIR will continue to make scheduling adjustments to ensure all cases are handled in a timely and lawful manner.”
Of the 10,370 people assigned to hearings in June, 58% were ruled absent, according to Justice Department data analyzed by Mobile Pathways.
Advocates said some didn’t show up because they’re scared of being arrested inside the courthouse – a tactic the Trump administration employed for months before it was blocked from doing so last year.
Other immigrants allegedly showed up but were issued removal orders because of chaos in the courthouse.
“We have witnessed immigrants being ordered removed for missing their court dates – not because they did not come to court, but because they arrived on time and amid the overcrowding and confusion, could not find the correct courtroom or hear their case being called,” Moseley said.
University of Iowa law student Chase McLaren attended what’s believed to be the first “mega master” hearing in Omaha, Nebraska.
McLaren said the judge issued orders in a “rapid fire” manner.
Every person who did not attend the day’s hearing received deportation orders, McLaren told The Des Moines Register, part of the Network.
If the government fails to do that and someone is ordered removed because they didn’t show up, the respondent can move to reopen the case.
attorney general rather than being confirmed by the Senate.
Immigration attorneys and legal experts have criticized the administration for what they call partisan hiring practices that emphasize loyalty to the president’s agenda over objective decision making.
The office added that all judges have a legal, ethical and professional obligation to be impartial and neutral in adjudicating cases.
Christopher Cann is a national reporter for.
Contact him by email at ccann@.com.
