Immigration Court Hearings Must Stay Open, Judge Rules

You show up to observe an immigration court hearing — maybe to support a friend in removal proceedings, maybe as a volunteer monitor — and the door is shut. No explanation. No alternative. That is exactly what a group of volunteer observers said happened to them, and in September 2026, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., said their complaint deserves to be heard.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, ruling in The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche (Civil Action No. 26-865), denied a request for a preliminary injunction but also refused to fully dismiss the case. The court found that plaintiffs — including the nonprofit The Advocates for Human Rights and several individual volunteer observers — had plausibly alleged that two government practices violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27, the federal regulation that generally requires immigration hearings to be open to the public. The first practice: moving immigration cases entirely online while blocking observers from joining remotely or in person. The second: bringing out-of-state judges to hear cases — particularly involving people of Somali descent — without giving the public adequate notice of where or how to watch.

The court stopped short of ordering the government to stop those practices. The main reason: the government told the court it had already ended them. In June 2026, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — the Justice Department agency that runs immigration courts — published a new fact sheet confirming that internet-based hearings are open to the public and that visitors may access Webex links to join. The only limit is 20 virtual visitors per hearing, due to bandwidth constraints. For hearings where a judge, the respondent, or an attorney is physically present in a courtroom, observers must attend in person. The court's refusal to grant the injunction was largely based on the government's assurance that the problematic practices had stopped — not on a finding that those practices were lawful.

The ruling matters beyond this one case. Immigration hearings — including master calendar hearings (short scheduling sessions), individual merits hearings (where a judge decides whether someone can stay in the US), and bond hearings (where a judge decides whether a detained person can be released) — are presumptively public under federal law. Historically, closures were rare. Former immigration judges who submitted declarations in this case said that in roughly seven years on the bench, one of them saw closures in only a small fraction of proceedings. The court's opinion makes clear that moving cases online does not strip the public of its right to observe.

What to do

• If you want to observe an immigration court hearing in person, check the EOIR court locator for the correct courtroom. Hearing notices are posted at the court.
• If the hearing is fully internet-based (no physical courtroom), EOIR's June 2026 fact sheet says you may request the Webex link. Up to 20 virtual visitors are allowed per hearing.
• If you are denied access to a hearing — in person or remotely — without a stated legal reason, document the date, court location, judge's name if known, and what you were told. This information may be useful to an attorney or advocacy organization.
• If you are a respondent (the person whose case is being heard) and you want supporters to observe, talk to your immigration lawyer about whether the hearing is in-person or internet-based and how observers can attend.

What to do, step by step — see our guide “Appealing to the BIA”.