# 119-hr-7836: Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026

119-hr-7836, Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026, is a 119th Congress bill sponsored by Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18] (D-CA); status introduced (as of 2026-10-07).

- Canonical: https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-7836
- As of: 2026-10-07
- Plain-text twin of the page above; the HTML and this file carry the same facts.

## Facts
- Bill: 119-hr-7836
- Congress: 119
- Title: Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026
- Status: introduced
- Introduced: 2026-03-05
- Sponsor: Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18] (D-CA)
- Cosponsors: 15
- Policy area: Immigration
- Touches household money: no
- Last recorded action: 2026-10-07

## 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.

## Cosponsors (15)

- Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4] (D-AZ), 2026-10-05T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8] (D-MD), 2026-03-05T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4] (D-GA), 2026-03-05T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10] (D-NY), 2026-03-05T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Magaziner, Seth [D-RI-2] (D-RI), 2026-05-11T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13] (D-MI), 2026-06-02T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6] (D-MA), 2026-06-02T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33] (D-TX), 2026-07-14T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16] (D-NY), 2026-07-16T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7] (D-IN), 2026-07-21T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9] (D-IL), 2026-08-27T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46] (D-CA), 2026-09-16T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20] (D-NY), 2026-09-16T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10] (D-CA), 2026-09-16T00:00:00.000Z
- Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5] (D-PA), 2026-09-16T00:00:00.000Z

## Provisions PRIA read

- New immigration courts and judge pay: benefit, high. 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,…
- Court budget, hiring, and staffing: benefit, medium. 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 i…
- Court transparency and annual reporting: benefit, low. 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 Appella…
- Move EOIR cases to new courts: mixed, high. 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…
- Immigration hearings: lawyers, fees, interpreters: mixed, medium. 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…
- Limits and removal rules for judges: mixed, low. 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…

## Related bills

- 119-hr-7973: Momnibus Act
- 119-hr-9877: Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2026
- 119-hr-51: Washington, D.C. Admission Act
- 119-hr-7977: Energy Bills Relief Act
- 119-hr-4206: CONNECT for Health Act of 2025
- 119-hr-15: Equality Act

## Sources
- [119-hr-7836 on Congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7836)

## Related
- [119-hr-7973: Momnibus Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-7973)
- [119-hr-9877: Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2026](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-9877)
- [119-hr-51: Washington, D.C. Admission Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-51)
- [119-hr-7977: Energy Bills Relief Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-7977)
- [119-hr-4206: CONNECT for Health Act of 2025](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-4206)
- [119-hr-15: Equality Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-15)
- [All bills in Congress](https://policyrisk.com/legislation)

Source: PRIA, https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-7836 (as of 2026-10-07).