Acacia logo, full color

Restrictions on Public Access Undermine Transparency in Immigration Courts

Why Public Access to Immigration Courts Matters More than Ever

 

December 2025

 

 

 

 

 

 

Immigration court hearings are, by law, open to the public. Yet in practice, court observer groups are being shut out. This blog details how Acacia’s observations demonstrate a pattern of reduced transparency in immigration courts amid heightened public concerns about immigration enforcement. 

Although 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27 establishes openness as the default, recent EOIR guidance and facility-specific rules have stretched restrictions beyond the enumerated exceptions. Judges and court administrators increasingly exercise broad discretion to close proceedings, often without clear, case-specific justification. Additionally, physical obstacles like locked courtrooms and signage declaring “all hearings closed” block entry to some courtrooms at the door.

In many locations, bans on notetaking and prohibitions on communication with respondents suppress basic documentation, precluding the very oversight the law envisions. Most troubling, policies that exclude observers from remote dockets ensure that hundreds of thousands of virtual hearings will unfold out of public view. These transparency gaps are even more severe in detention facilities and remote adjudication centers, where DHS and facility rules sharply restrict in-person access. Because virtual hearings dominate in these settings, entire dockets can become effectively unobservable.  

When hearings that determine liberty, family unity, and protection from harm occur behind closed doors, due process suffers, accountability erodes, and public trust declines. Robust public access is a cornerstone of fair adjudication in any court: it deters abuse, corrects error, and affirms that justice is administered openly and equally. Restoring meaningful access to immigration court hearings, both in person and remotely, is essential to safeguard the integrity of the immigration court system and uphold the public’s right to know. 

 

Legal Framework for Public Access 

General Rule 

  • Under the First Amendment and common law, the public has a presumptive right to access judicial proceedings, unless a court makes “specific factual findings” that closure is necessary to serve an overriding interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Ariz., 156 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Oregonian Pub. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1466 (9th Cir. 1990)). 2025.06.11 Ltr re Concord Imm Court.pdf 
  • Evidentiary hearings on asylum or withholding of removal are open unless the respondent requests closure, and the judge must ask if closure is desired. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3)(i) 

Key Exceptions Under the Federal Regulations 

  • Physical Limitations: Judges may limit the number of attendees due to space, prioritizing the press over the general public. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27(a)
  • Protection of Parties/Witnesses/Public Interest: Judges can close hearings to protect witnesses, parties, or the public interest. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27(b)
  • Abused Spouses/Children: Hearings involving abused spouses or children are closed unless the abused spouse consents to openness. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27(c) 
  • Protective Orders: If information under a protective order may be discussed, the hearing is closed. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27(d) 

 

Current EOIR Guidance goes Beyond the Regulations 

The November 2025 EOIR Fact Sheet on court observation references the applicable regulations and, beyond the exceptions to public access outlined therein, provides additional guidance specifying the following restrictions on public access to hearings:  

  • The Immigration Judge may make a determination to limit attendance or close a hearing (broader than limited exceptions outlined in regulations);
  • Photography of posted dockets is prohibited; 
  • Visitors must observe in person; remote access (e.g., Webex) is generally reserved for case parties.
  • Additional facility-specific rules may apply, especially in detention centers. 

 

Real-World Challenges to Public Access 

Broad Discretion and Inconsistent Access 

  • Judges and court administrators have exercised broad discretion to close hearings, beyond the limited exceptions outlined in the regulations, sometimes citing vague or overbroad reasons (e.g., “protecting the process” “security reasons” or “bandwidth concerns” for remote access). Sometimes no reason is provided at all.
  • Access to immigration court hearings varies across the country. It does not appear that judges and/or court administrators are abiding by a consistent set of rules. Even courts in the same state have different levels of public access.  

 

Physical and Procedural Barriers 

  • Locked courtrooms, missing names or concealed names on publicly posted dockets, and signs stating “All hearings closed” have been reported, even when regulations favor openness.
  • Docket schedules are irregularly posted, and clerks are reluctant to share docket information with observers that call ahead of time.
  • Security staff may forget to unlock doors, or guards arbitrarily control access.
  • In some locations, observers are confined to the courtrooms and are denied access to certain areas such as the hallways and the lobby. Observers present in those areas have been accused of loitering. Importantly, areas outside of the actual courtroom are where most ICE enforcement is currently taking place.  

 

Restrictions on Technology and Note-Taking  

  • Use of phones, photography, and even note-taking is banned or restricted in some courts, making documentation difficult or impossible. 
  • Some judges prohibit observers from carrying a clip board, from sharing resources with respondents, or from speaking to respondents. 

Remote Access Limitations 

  • Remote observation via Webex is increasingly restricted, with some judges citing “bandwidth issues” to deny observers, others citing the November 2025 EOIR Fact Sheet, and others simply saying that they do not allow observers into hearings. 
  • Observers may be arbitrarily removed from remote dockets or never admitted into the hearing without justification.
  • The use of virtual courtrooms has increased exponentially. According to government data, there were just over 157,000 virtual hearings in 2021, compared with over 853,000 so far in 2025. 
  • Dockets are not consistently posted for WebEx hearings.
  • There are courts that only hold virtual hearings such as the Falls Church Adjudication Center and the Richmond Adjudication Center. Between those two centers there are 23 judges whose hearings would not be accessible under the new guidance.
  • Access to courts within detention facilities is often constrained by additional DHS or facility-specific rules, creating significant barriers to in-person observation. With current guidance prohibiting virtual observation, these limitations risk making detained hearings increasingly opaque and reducing opportunities for meaningful public oversight. 

 

Surveillance and Chilling Effects 

  • Advocacy and observer groups in NY have faced surveillance, including monitoring of Signal chats by federal agencies, which can deter participation and transparency efforts. See FBI Bulletin on Surveillance of Signal Chat Used by Volunteer Courtwatchers at NYC’s Immigration Courts | DocumentCloud 
  • In one reported location, observers have been notified that they are subject to arrest if they approach a courtroom when no master calendar hearings are scheduled. Observers are not even permitted on the floor to check the docket. This is despite the fact that all hearing types are generally open to the public, absent an enumerated exception. 

 

Demanding Public Access: A Constitutional Imperative  

Public access to immigration court hearings is not a courtesy; it is rooted in the Constitution. The First Amendment supports the public’s ability to observe immigration court proceedings, affirming transparency as essential to fairness and accountability.   When these high stakes hearings occur behind closed doors, the integrity of the system is compromised. Open access ensures judges follow the law, errors are identified and corrected, and public confidence in the process is maintained. Restricting access through physical barriers, intimidation, or blanket prohibitions on observation, strikes at the heart of these protections and erodes trust in the rule of law. Continued access, both in person and virtually, is essential to prevent abuse and affirm that justice is properly carried out in immigration courts. Anything less risks turning proceedings into secret tribunals, contrary to the values of openness and accountability that define a fair judicial system. Simply put: a government official’s actions in the immigration context must not be beyond scrutiny because “democracies die behind closed doors.” Detroit Free Press, 303 F.3d at 683.  2025.06.11 Ltr re Concord Imm Court.pdf