PRIA Logo™
119-hr-7836119th Congress

Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026

Sponsored By: Representative Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

Introduced

Summary

This bill would create an independent United States Immigration Courts system outside the executive branch and reorganize immigration adjudication into three parts: an Appellate Division, a Trial Division, and an Administrative Division. It would move functions and staff from the Executive Office for Immigration Review into the new court, set judges' terms and pay, require transparency and reporting, and establish rules on representation, interpreters, and published precedents.

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

6 provisions identified: 3 benefits, 0 costs, 3 mixed.

New immigration courts and judge pay

If enacted, the bill would create a new, independent United States Immigration Courts system with an Appellate Division and Trial Division. The Appellate Division would have 21 appeals judges appointed to 15-year terms. Trial judges would get pay set at 92% of a U.S. district court judge's salary, and judges would get new retirement rules with mandatory retirement at age 80 and specified age-and-service tiers. Current EOIR immigration judges serving the day before the application date would become interim trial judges and their service would count for retirement and disability.

Move EOIR cases to new courts

If enacted, the bill would transfer most functions, staff, cases, funds, records, and contracts from the Executive Office for Immigration Review to the new Immigration Courts on the application date. Certain DOJ components like OCAHO would remain at DOJ. Pending proceedings would move and continue without losing rights or causing prejudice to parties.

Court budget, hiring, and staffing

If enacted, the Immigration Courts would set their own annual budget and put it in the President's budget without executive-branch edits. The courts could hire some staff outside usual federal hiring rules and set pay for certain court employees to align with judicial pay. If resources are judged insufficient, the Appellate Division could appoint temporary judges, recall retired judges, and open temporary court sites after reporting to Congress.

Immigration hearings: lawyers, fees, interpreters

If enacted, people in Immigration Court cases would be allowed to hire a lawyer of their choice at no cost to the government, and courts must ensure qualified interpreters and run a Legal Orientation Program. The Appellate Division would set rules for who may represent parties, professional conduct, and reasonable filing fees, but must allow fee waivers for financial hardship. Judges could hold trials, order subpoenas, and fine obstructive behavior, and there is a presumption against video hearings when an alien's eligibility for relief is being decided unless the alien requests VTC.

Court transparency and annual reporting

If enacted, the chief judge would send Congress an annual report by April 1 on the prior fiscal year's court workload. The report would include demographics, representation rates, removal outcomes by area and judge, bond hearing results, pending case counts, and average days to hearing. The Appellate Division's precedent decisions would be published and most other case documents would be publicly available, with special secrecy for asylum, national security, and Violence Against Women Act matters.

Limits and removal rules for judges

If enacted, immigration judges would be barred from practicing law or holding jobs that conflict with judicial duties. Judges could be removed only for incapacity, misconduct, neglect of duty, or practicing law, and removal would require notice and a hearing. The Appellate Division would set rules for complaints and investigations consistent with federal judicial norms.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

CA • D

Cosponsors

  • Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]

    AZ • D

    Sponsored 10/5/2026

  • Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8]

    MD • D

    Sponsored 3/5/2026

  • Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]

    GA • D

    Sponsored 3/5/2026

  • Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

    NY • D

    Sponsored 3/5/2026

  • Rep. Magaziner, Seth [D-RI-2]

    RI • D

    Sponsored 5/11/2026

  • Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13]

    MI • D

    Sponsored 6/2/2026

  • Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]

    MA • D

    Sponsored 6/2/2026

  • Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33]

    TX • D

    Sponsored 7/14/2026

  • Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16]

    NY • D

    Sponsored 7/16/2026

  • Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7]

    IN • D

    Sponsored 7/21/2026

  • Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]

    IL • D

    Sponsored 8/27/2026

  • Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46]

    CA • D

    Sponsored 9/16/2026

  • Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

    NY • D

    Sponsored 9/16/2026

  • Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10]

    CA • D

    Sponsored 9/16/2026

  • Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]

    PA • D

    Sponsored 9/16/2026

Roll Call Votes

No roll call votes available for this bill.

View on Congress.gov
Back to Legislation