Introduction
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportations aren’t just a headline – they’re a cruel reality affecting thousands of individuals in the United States every year, including students and faculty within Overlake. You’ve probably seen many circulating news stories about individuals or families detained, but have you ever learned about what happens after arrest, or what protections individuals have? While the Constitution promises that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, many concerns exist surrounding whether or not immigration courts truly meet this requirement.
- Constitutional Due Process
To begin, what is Due Process? The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Today, Due Process has two main interpretations: Substantive and Procedural. Substantive protects fundamental, often unenumerated rights from government interference. Procedural Due Process, the most relevant in immigration cases, requires that when the government deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property, the person must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decision-maker. These specific procedural elements were not explicitly stated in the constitution, rather, developed through court decisions overtime. The most important cases were Tumey v. Ohio (1927), which established that decision-makers must be impartial; Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950), which established notice and a hearing; and Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), which solidified procedural due process as a fundamental right and not merely a privilege.
2. ICE Enforcement
Next, let’s take a deeper look at ICE. We often see intense videos circulating online, but those videos only provide a glimpse into the lengthy process that actually occurs, making it crucial for us to understand and be aware of the full story.
When someone is detained by ICE, their path forward varies heavily from person to person. Some receive a Notice to Appear form, which starts removal proceedings in immigration court. Those who receive Notice to Appear form attend a Master Calendar Hearing, the first stage of removal proceeding where a judge explains their rights and responsibilities. Next are Individual Calendar Hearings, which allow individuals to fully present their case, submit evidence and documents, present and question witnesses, and argue eligibility for certain relief and protection applications. After the Individual Calendar Hearing, the judge issues a final decision: either granting relief or ordering removal.
On the other hand, some receive forms such as Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, which means that ICE can deport individuals without court involvement – an order common for those arrested at or near the U.S. border, previously deported, or convicted of crimes. In these expedited removal cases, ICE does not give the right to talk to an immigration judge or file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Rather, the only option left is to petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is rarely successful due to the tight deadlines, limited scope of review, and fact that removals often occur far before the court can act.
A. Notice
Understanding how removal proceedings unfold helps set the stage for evaluating whether procedural due process is respected. Starting with one of the most vital protections: notice is the requirement that individuals be clearly informed of the charges against them.
Looking at ICE procedures, however, this protection can often falls short. A 2020 decision by the Board of Immigrant Appeals (BIA) affirmed that the government can be sloppy with deportation paperwork. Typically, a notice must meet certain legal requirements to be valid, including informing immigrants of the reason of deportation through checkboxes classifying allegations. However, in the case of Herrera-Vasquez, the government left those boxes completely blank; thus, in his Individual Calendar Hearing, the judge terminated the case due to the governmental error. But, in response, the government filed a successful appeal in which the BIA claimed it was “no big deal” for the government to omit that information. This double standard – where the government can be careless and omit crucial information while individuals have their applications to benefits rejected for minor errors – raises serious questions about a potential violation of the procedural due process of notice.
Even when Notice forms are technically complete, they often fail in readability and comprehension. For example, a 2019 study by the American Immigration Council found that the Notice to Appear document often used complex legal terminology and lengthy paragraphs that made it hard for recipients to understand the nature of the charge or next steps. As the majority decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank explains, “notice must be sufficient to enable the recipient to determine what is being proposed”. A system where the government can skip informing individuals of their charges or use convoluted wording to hinder comprehension of said charges may very much fall short of this standard.
B. Opportunity to be Heard
Secondly, procedural due process guarantees that no individual shall be deprived of rights without a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This requires that an individual has the chance to present evidence, challenge witnesses, and make arguments. On the surface, immigration courts seem to meet the requirement of a hearing by providing Master Calendar and Individual Calendar hearings. However, the Sixth Amendment does not apply to immigration courts, meaning individuals are not provided with a lawyer if they cannot afford one. But, only a mere 14% of detained immigrants can afford legal representation, leaving the rest with no choice but to navigate their legal case alone. This is detrimental, as studies found that detained immigrants with legal counsel are up to 10.5 times more likely to succeed in their cases compared to those without. Even if the 6th Amendment hasn’t been made applicable to immigration courts, it directly intrudes on protections guaranteed by the 5th. Without legal support, many individuals struggle to navigate their hearings and fight for their rights.
What manifests to be an even more pressing issue are expedited removals, which allow ICE to deport individuals without any hearing or legal process before a judge. This raises significant concerns about due processes’ guarantee of the opportunity to be heard – as it renders many individuals completely defenseless against deportation.
C. Unbiased Decision Maker
The last fundamental component of procedural due process is the guarantee to have a neutral, impartial, and unbiased decision-maker. This requirement guarantees that hearings are conducted fairly and prevents decisions that are based on corruption or distorted data. An excerpt from the majority decision of Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) makes this clear, writing that “the decision maker must be impartial”.
However, immigration judges are not truly independent; they are administrative officials employed by Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is under the Department of Justice in the Executive branch. This creates a clear conflict of interest, as the decision making of immigration judges is often influenced by the executive branch’s enforcement priorities.
Further, the Department of Justice has recently engaged in rapid turnover of judges, firing over 100 and claiming that the Biden administrations hiring practices “undermined the credibility and impartiality of the immigration courts”. As of January 2026, the EOIR has hired 36 new immigration judges, 27 of which are temporary. However, half of the new permanent judges have a military background, as do 100% of the temporary judges. This concentration of judges with military experience creates an inherent risk of bias towards government enforcement, particularly in removal cases. By intentionally staffing immigration courts in a way that favors enforcement outcomes, the government fails to provide a truly neutral decision-maker – potentially falling short of the procedural due process protections guaranteed under the 5th Amendment.
What can you do?
As we think about the rights of individuals in immigration proceedings, it’s important to know that there are ways to take action locally. Washington State is currently considering SB 5852, a bill that would require employers to keep workers informed of their rights and how the immigration court process works. The bill has passed the House but is still pending in the Senate. You can send a comment to your senator or track the bill and learn more if you’re interested helping to support!
What does this mean for us as a community?
Due Process is meant to be a shield, protecting individuals from unfair treatment when faced with a charge. Yet in immigration courts, that shield if often weakened at every step: notices that fail to clearly inform recipients, a lack of opportunity to be heard, and pre-biased judges. The result is a system where protections are guaranteed under the Constitution but undermined in practice, leaving countless individuals vulnerable to removal without due process.
Reading about heavy topics like this, it’s impossible not to feel the weight of these experiences. But as a community, we must carry this awareness with us. We must not be blind to the struggles of an often unforgiving system or be influenced by one-sided perspectives we see on social media. Instead, we must approach stories with empathy, question what we hear, and remember behind the screens are real people. I hope that moving forward, we can carry a deeper awareness in our own lives — in the ways we listen, learn, and engage with the world around us.
Leave a Reply