In July, immigration judges in San Antonio, Texas, scheduled a series of mass hearings that resulted in dozens of removal orders issued in absentia, often without prior notice to the individuals involved.
The hearings were part of a broader set of policy changes under the second Trump administration that have accelerated the pace of immigration enforcement.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an agency within the Department of Justice, oversees immigration courts and has a docket of more than 3.2 million pending cases, creating longstanding challenges for both administrations.
Judge Brittany A. Rodriquez, who began her tenure on the bench in June 2026 after a career in immigration enforcement, presided over a docket that included a 49‑year‑old Cuban man, a six‑year‑old Mexican girl, a three‑year‑old Cuban boy, a 22‑year‑old Venezuelan woman and her two‑year‑old son, and dozens of other respondents.
During the session, the judge identified 15 cases where respondents had missed their hearings and, after adding five more no‑shows, indicated that the missing individuals could be ordered removed in absentia without appearing in court.
EOIR officials stated that the agency prioritizes timely completion of cases and adjusts scheduling to avoid unnecessary delay, but research by bklg.org shows that the number of in absentia removal orders rose 183.6 % in June compared with the previous year.
The practice of mega master calendar hearings, which schedule 100 to 200 cases and up to 150 people per session, has become more common; notice of these hearings is often short and sent in English, and many respondents appear without legal representation.
Critics argue that the accelerated schedule reduces the ability of individuals to secure counsel, as legal clinics are overwhelmed and private attorneys typically require fees of several thousand dollars.
According to Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge, a lawyer can resolve a master calendar hearing in about two minutes, whereas cases without counsel take considerably longer.
The number of removal orders issued in June reached 53,808, constituting a majority of case completions for the month, with more than 13,000 stemming from master calendar hearings that scheduled a hundred or more people with lead times of 45 days or fewer.
Researchers at bklg.org noted that the median lead time for respondents not in detention fell to 42 days in June, down from 169 days in a previous hearing with 73 people, and that the proportion of in absentia orders increased substantially across multiple judges.
Fear of enforcement and inaccurate notice, such as incorrect addresses or delayed mail, are cited as reasons why many respondents do not attend their hearings, according to Katie Fleming, director of public education and engagement at the Acacia Center for Justice.
The EOIR spokesperson said the agency seeks to balance timely case resolution with due process, noting that unnecessary delay harms both meritorious claims and the public interest in swift removal of non‑meritorious cases.
Since the start of the second Trump administration, more than 100 immigration judges have left the bench through termination, resignation, or retirement, many of them known for granting relief, and new judges have been recruited with messaging that emphasizes a hard line on immigration.
Less than 2 % of completed cases in June resulted in relief for immigrants, such as asylum, indicating a narrow margin for successful defense.
The continued acceleration of mass hearings and the rise in in absentia removal orders present ongoing challenges for the immigration courts and raise questions about the future of due process in the United States.