Pop-Up Immigration Courts Face Public Access Questions

Pop-up immigration courts set up inside FEMA’s Washington headquarters and other Homeland Security office space are drawing pressure from House Democrats, who say ICE officers kept the public and congressional staff out of hearings that federal rules generally require to be open. Rep. Greg Stanton of Arizona told the Arizona Mirror on Oct. 19 that he still has no answer to a Sept. 28 letter he and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland sent to the heads of DHS, ICE, FEMA, the Justice Department and the Federal Protective Service, even though the letter asked for written responses within a week.

It matters now because the rooms appear to be multiplying while the agencies running them decline to say where they are. A hearing moved to an unmarked office building is easy to miss, and a missed immigration hearing usually ends in a deportation order.

Inside the pop-up immigration courts at 500 C Street

On Sept. 23, according to the letter, Stanton, the ranking Democrat on the House subcommittee that oversees federal public buildings, tried to watch hearings in a courtroom at FEMA headquarters, 500 C Street SW. ICE officers barred him and his staff while DOJ, ICE, FEMA, the Federal Protective Service and DHS each pointed elsewhere; hours later, DHS let him in alone. The next day he got in after about 20 minutes, and the judge, appearing by video like the DHS prosecutor, said on the record that the public could observe.

Bloomberg Law reported on Sept. 29 that FEMA, the Coast Guard, CISA, ICE and USCIS have supplied space, including conference rooms, that Maryland and Virginia respondents have been told to appear at FEMA headquarters, and that DHS space at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan is in use. The letter says DHS property staff told lawmakers the White House directed DHS to find courtroom space, with sites possibly opening in Washington, Los Angeles, Denver, Miami, New York and San Antonio.

An EOIR spokesperson told the Mirror the office is “opening new hearing locations as needed” but would not name them; EOIR spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly told Bloomberg Law that “unnecessary delay hurts both aliens with meritorious claims and the American public.” DHS did not answer the Mirror’s questions.

What the open-hearing rule allows

Immigration court hearings are open to the public under 8 C.F.R. 1003.27, with exceptions for cases involving abused spouses or children, sealed or classified material, and closures a judge orders to protect witnesses, parties or the public interest. EOIR’s own fact sheet, “Observing Immigration Court Hearings,” dated September 2026, says visitors “are not required to check in with court personnel” before entering a courtroom.

Hearings in DHS buildings are not new; the fact sheet notes courts sit in federal office buildings and detention facilities. The open question is whether officers of the prosecuting agency can control the door to a conference-room courtroom when no judge has made the closure findings the regulation requires. The letter says no such determination was made or cited.

The sharper risk falls on respondents. Under section 240(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who received written notice of a hearing and does not appear is ordered removed in absentia. A notice that lists an unfamiliar address is still notice, and reopening generally requires showing exceptional circumstances within 180 days, or showing that proper notice never arrived. “All the people that were supposed to check in, none of them were there when they were supposed to be there,” Stanton told the Mirror. The letter asks how many in absentia orders the FEMA courtroom has issued and why it has no signs, and it flags that cases move to an established court once a lawyer appears, which would leave mostly unrepresented people in the new rooms.

EOIR presents the expansion as a backlog measure. Its latest workload table, generated July 24, 2026, puts pending cases at 3,469,569 at the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2026, down from 3,722,776 at the end of fiscal 2025 and the table’s high of 3,924,993 in fiscal 2024. The push for speed also shows at the Concord immigration court that absorbed San Francisco’s cases and in recent Board rulings that make continuances harder to win and let judges decide remanded cases without a new hearing.

In the minority, Stanton and Raskin cannot compel answers, so the next move likely falls to a litigant. A court challenge would face a split record: in 2002 the Sixth Circuit found a First Amendment right of access to deportation hearings in Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, while the Third Circuit rejected one in North Jersey Media Group v. Ashcroft. Stanton says he plans to return to the FEMA courtroom after the November election.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts