One thing uncommon is occurring in U.S. immigration courts. Authorities attorneys are refusing to provide their names throughout public hearings.
In June 2025, Immigration Choose ShaSha Xu in New York Metropolis reportedly informed attorneys in her courtroom: “We’re not really doing names publicly.” Solely the federal government attorneys’ names have been hidden – the immigrants’ attorneys needed to give their names as normal. Xu cited privateness issues, saying, “Things lately have changed.”
When one immigration lawyer objected that the court docket document can be incomplete with out the federal government legal professional’s title, Xu reportedly refused to offer it. In one other case, New York immigration Choose James McCarthy in July referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, legal professional as merely “Department” all through the listening to.
New York immigration Choose 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 carrying masks throughout arrests to cover their identities.
This secrecy violates a basic 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.
Hiding of ICE attorneys’ names in court docket matches a broader sample seen right here exterior a New York immigration courtroom of ICE brokers carrying masks.
AP Picture/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 court docket 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 making an attempt folks “too powerful to be brought before ordinary common-law courts.”
However the Star Chamber finally turned a software of oppression, utilizing torture to acquire confessions and punishing jurors who dominated in opposition to the Crown. Parliament abolished it in 1641 after widespread abuses.
By the point American colonial courts have been established, the response in opposition to the Star Chamber had already formed English authorized considering towards openness. American courts adopted this precept of transparency from the start, rejecting the secretive proceedings that had enabled abuse.
At the moment, the time period “star chamber” refers to any secret court docket 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 offers the general public a proper to look at judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court docket has dominated that “a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice.”
Each federal appeals court docket has acknowledged that this constitutional proper extends to civil instances too, with some exceptions akin to defending “the parties’ privacy, confidential business information, or trade secrets.” Federal court docket 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 – akin to Oregon’s mandate that “no court shall be secret.”
Whereas there’s no specific legislation 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 current developments, legislation 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 professional concerns.”
Guidelines for anonymity
Courts typically permit anonymity, however solely in particular circumstances.
Juries may 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 attorneys nonetheless know the jurors’ names.
Equally, events to a lawsuit can typically use pseudonyms like “Jane Doe” when the case includes extremely delicate issues akin to sexual abuse, or when there’s an actual danger of bodily retaliation.
However these uncommon exceptions require cautious court docket overview.
What’s taking place with ICE attorneys is completely different. There’s no formal court docket ruling permitting it, no particular security findings and no established authorized course of.
Immigration courts have fewer protections
Immigration courts function otherwise from common federal courts. They’re so-called “administrative courts” which can be a part of the chief 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 take away somebody from the nation for violating immigration legislation or when a person seeks to remain within the nation by way of the asylum course of.
Immigration judges lack the lifetime job protections that common federal judges have. As govt department authorities workers, they are often employed and fired, similar to different Division of Justice workers.
Individuals in immigration court docket even have fewer procedural protections than legal defendants. They don’t have any proper to court-appointed counsel and should symbolize themselves until they will afford to rent an legal professional. The vast majority of immigrants seem with out an legal professional. Outcomes are higher for individuals who can afford to rent counsel.
Immigration court docket information are additionally much less accessible to the general public than different federal court docket proceedings.
For years, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation’s highest immigration court docket, made lower than 1% of its opinions publicly accessible. A federal court docket dominated that public disclosure was required; the Board of Immigration Appeals now posts its selections on-line.
Nevertheless, decrease immigration court docket selections are hardly ever made public.
As a result of immigration courts function with much less oversight than common federal courts, public remark turns into extra crucial.
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 honest.
Federal brokers patrol the halls of immigration court docket on the Jacob Ok. Javitz Federal Constructing on July 21, 2025, in New York Metropolis.
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Photographs
Court docket watching protects transparency
Court docket watching has change into an essential means 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 folks respectfully and following court docket guidelines – no matter whether or not these attorneys establish themselves.
Observers assist monitor tendencies akin to lack of authorized illustration, language boundaries or procedural unfairness that may inform advocacy for reforms. This type of public oversight is particularly essential in immigration court docket, the place folks usually don’t have attorneys and should not perceive their rights.
When group members bear witness to those proceedings, it helps make sure the system operates pretty and transparently.
Skilled ethics and accountability
As a legislation professor who runs a legislation faculty’s Heart for Skilled Ethics, I can say that whereas there’s no particular legislation forcing ICE attorneys to establish themselves, they’re nonetheless certain by guidelines {of professional} conduct that require accountability and transparency.
State bar associations have clear requirements about legal professional conduct in court docket proceedings. The American Bar Affiliation’s Mannequin Guidelines of Skilled Conduct emphasize that attorneys are “officers of the legal system” with duties to uphold its integrity.
Immigration judges, regardless of being authorities workers somewhat 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 danger violating these moral obligations.
Bar associations can examine skilled conduct violations and impose sanctions starting from reprimands to suspension or disbarment. Whereas enforcement in opposition to federal authorities attorneys has traditionally been unusual, sustained documentation by court docket observers can present the proof wanted for formal complaints.
Whereas authorities attorneys, judges and different court docket personnel might face actual security issues, hiding their identities in open court docket is unprecedented and breaks with centuries of authorized custom that requires accountability and transparency in our justice system.
As strain 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 basic equity and transparency.
