Opinion · October 25, 2026
A courtroom should not work like a vending machine: insert a political demand, receive the preferred outcome. That principle is worth defending even when the people appearing before the judge are unpopular. Especially then. A right that only protects sympathetic people is a courtesy, not much of a right.
Read the government’s own words
The Executive Office for Immigration Review’s September 23, 2025 memorandum withdrew an earlier adjudication email and stated that its leaders cannot direct judges to decide individual cases in a particular way. This is an existing document, not a new policy announced today. Its distinction between administration and adjudication remains central to the current debate over immigration courts.
The memo also defends judges’ lawful procedural discretion. The point is not that every judge will agree or every claimant will succeed. It is that an argument should be resolved through the process, not by an unofficial instruction about the answer.
A government can enforce the law and still lose a case
Political leaders often speak as though an adverse ruling is evidence that the machinery is broken. Sometimes it is evidence that the other side made a better argument. A functioning court needs room for that possibility. Otherwise the hearing becomes a ceremony held after the decision has already been made elsewhere.
Enforcement agencies should present their evidence and use lawful review when they disagree. They should not need a sympathetic judge guaranteed in advance. The same standard protects the credibility of outcomes that favor the government.
Independence has to survive inconvenience
Immigration policy can be tough without turning adjudication into a loyalty test. Demanding genuine hearings is not a proposal to erase borders or grant every application. It is a demand that power follow the rules it invokes against everyone else.
The document is public. The principle is plain. If leaders want citizens to trust the system, they should welcome scrutiny of whether practice matches it. A robe should signify independent judgment. It should not be the uniform worn by the person who presses the approved button.
Explore more Daily Junk Food coverage and the complete story archive.
Photo: Gunnar Klack / CC BY-SA 4.0. Resized and padded for display; photograph content unchanged.
Facts first. Side-eye included.
DJF separates what is confirmed from what is claimed—and tells you why this particular mess is worth your time.