Volunteer court observers appeal after a judge declines to order immigration courts to restore public access to hearings
Volunteer immigration court observers are appealing a judge's refusal to order restored public access to hearings. The judge let two of their claims proceed but said a June 2026 government fact sheet lessened the risk of being shut out.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
A Justice Department regulation, 8 C.F.R. 1003.27, says immigration hearings are open to the public, with exceptions such as limited space or the protection of a witness or party. Immigration courts belong to the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review rather than the federal judiciary. The Advocates for Human Rights has sent observers to the Fort Snelling Immigration Court since 2017 and says restrictions began there in early 2025. It sued in March 2026, and observers from other states later joined the suit. A spokesperson for the immigration courts told MinnPost in April 2026 that the office declines to comment on litigation.
People in this case
Todd BlancheDirectly involved
Rudolph ContrerasCommented
Timeline
4 timeline entries on this page. Dates: March 12, 2026 to October 14, 2026
March 2026
The Advocates for Human Rights sues over restrictions on observing immigration court hearings
The Minneapolis group files a federal lawsuit challenging Justice Department limits on public access to hearings at the Fort Snelling Immigration Court, including locked courtroom doors, docket closures and the loss of public access to hearings held over Webex.
[01]The Advocates for Human Rights
The group's announcement of its lawsuit over access to hearings at the Fort Snelling Immigration Court, with a statement from executive director Michele Garnett McKenzie and a list of the restrictions it challenges.
The Advocates for Human Rights Files Federal Lawsuit to Protect Public Access to Immigration Court Hearings · The Advocates for Human RightsPress release, paragraphs 1-5
September 2026
Judge denies a preliminary injunction and dismisses most of the observers' claims
Judge Rudolph Contreras denies the observers' renewed motion for a preliminary injunction and grants the government's motion to dismiss in part. Two claims proceed: that hearings are held entirely online with no public access, and that access is offered only in another state without adequate notice.
[02]The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), memorandum opinion denying a preliminary injunction and granting in part a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 43)
The 50-page opinion on the volunteer observers' challenge to restrictions on observing immigration court hearings, ruling on their renewed motion for a preliminary injunction and the government's motion to dismiss.
The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), memorandum opinion denying a preliminary injunction and granting in part a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 43)Memorandum opinion, part I (pages 1-2), part II.A (pages 5-6) and part V (page 47)[03]The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), docket
District court docket showing the September 3 order and opinion, the plaintiffs' October 9 notice of interlocutory appeal and the D.C. Circuit case number assigned on October 14.
The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), docketDocket entries 42-48 and the October 14, 2026, appeal entry
October 2026
Observers file a notice of interlocutory appeal
The Advocates for Human Rights and seven individual observers file a notice of interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from the September 3 opinion and order.
[03]The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), docket
District court docket showing the September 3 order and opinion, the plaintiffs' October 9 notice of interlocutory appeal and the D.C. Circuit case number assigned on October 14.
The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), docketDocket entries 42-48 and the October 14, 2026, appeal entryD.C. Circuit dockets the appeal
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit assigns the appeal case number 26-5355.
[03]The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), docket
District court docket showing the September 3 order and opinion, the plaintiffs' October 9 notice of interlocutory appeal and the D.C. Circuit case number assigned on October 14.
The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), docketDocket entries 42-48 and the October 14, 2026, appeal entry
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
The Advocates for Human Rights
Immigration courts have restricted public and press access to hearings without justification, contrary to the federal regulation that makes immigration hearings open to the public.
What is disputed
Judge Rudolph Contreras found two claims plausible, about remote-only hearings with no public access and about out-of-state judges without adequate notice of where to observe, and dismissed the others. He wrote that some of the measures the observers dispute are lawful, such as requiring observers to attend hearings in person.
Sources (3)
- The Advocates for Human Rights Files Federal Lawsuit to Protect Public Access to Immigration Court Hearings · The Advocates for Human RightsPress release, paragraphs 1-5
- The Advocates for Human Rights Documents Ongoing Restrictions on Public Access to Immigration Court · The Advocates for Human RightsNews post, paragraphs 1-6
- The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), memorandum opinion denying a preliminary injunction and granting in part a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 43)Memorandum opinion, part I (pages 1-2), part II.A (pages 5-6) and part V (page 47)
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 responses. Newest first.
Rudolph ContrerasU.S. District Judge, District of Columbia, in a memorandum opinionBefore this statement
The opinion's conclusion follows its review of the observers' claims about locked courtrooms, remote hearings, out-of-state judges and other limits on access at immigration courts.
"Although most of Plaintiffs claims fail, two core claims remain. Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the Government is denying volunteer observers access to immigration proceedings by either holding them entirely online with no way for the public to access them or providing access only in a different state with no adequate notice of where that will be. These practices, if proven, would violate 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27."
Mixed or conditionalResponding to: Immigration courts have restricted public and press access to hearings without justification, contrary to the federal regulation that makes immigration hearings open to the public.
Full statement and sources
Contreras writes that most of the observers' claims fail, but that two would show a violation of the open-hearing regulation if proven: holding hearings entirely online with no public access, and offering access only in another state without adequate notice. He denies the preliminary injunction.
After the statement
The opinion then denies the government's motion to dismiss as to those two claims and grants it on the rest. It denies the preliminary injunction largely because the government has recently taken steps, perhaps prompted by the litigation, to address the observers' concerns.
The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), memorandum opinion denying a preliminary injunction and granting in part a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 43)Memorandum opinion, part I (pages 1-2), part II.A (pages 5-6) and part V (page 47)Why this label?
The reference point is the restrictions that immigration courts, run by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, have placed on public observers' access to hearings, including remote-only hearings without public access and cases moved to out-of-state judges. Contreras finds that two of the practices would violate the regulation if proven, dismisses the other claims and denies an injunction, so his ruling is mixed.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
The Advocates for Human RightsPlaintiff organization, in a news post on its websiteDirectly involved Before this statement
The post opens by saying transparency is essential to a functioning court system and that federal regulations make immigration court hearings presumptively open to the public, allowing closed hearings only in specific circumstances.
"The Advocates for Human Rights and court observers across the country have documented immigration courts repeatedly restricting public and press access to hearings without justification."
CondemnedResponding to: Immigration courts have restricted public and press access to hearings without justification, contrary to the federal regulation that makes immigration hearings open to the public.
Full statement and sources
In an update on its lawsuit, The Advocates for Human Rights says it and observers around the country have documented immigration courts repeatedly restricting public and press access to hearings without justification, and that the problems continued more than four months after it sued.
After the statement
The post says observers at Fort Snelling began facing locked courtroom doors and judges' refusals to admit them to virtual Webex hearings in early 2025, and that more than four months after the March 2026 lawsuit, these problems continue.
The Advocates for Human Rights Documents Ongoing Restrictions on Public Access to Immigration Court · The Advocates for Human RightsNews post, paragraphs 1-6Why this label?
The reference point is the restrictions that immigration courts, run by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, have placed on public observers' access to hearings, including remote-only hearings without public access and cases moved to out-of-state judges. The group says the courts restrict access without justification, contrary to regulations that make hearings presumptively open.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewSpokesperson for the federal immigration courts, responding to MinnPostDirectly involved Before this statement
The report describes the 1987 Justice Department regulation that makes hearings open to the public with narrow exceptions, and the lawsuit's First Amendment claim, which relies on a 2002 appeals court ruling on press and public access to immigration proceedings.
"declines to comment on litigation-related matters."
Explicitly stayed outCase context: Volunteer court observers appeal after a judge declines to order immigration courts to restore public access to hearings
Full statement and sources
Asked about the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the federal immigration courts said the office declines to comment on litigation-related matters.
After the statement
The report then describes how access changed for the group's observers at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, according to Amy Lange, whose volunteers observe hearings there.
Why this label?
The reference point is the restrictions that immigration courts, run by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, have placed on public observers' access to hearings, including remote-only hearings without public access and cases moved to out-of-state judges. The office's spokesperson declined to comment on the litigation, so it took no public position on the observers' claims in this response.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(5)
Original text
The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), memorandum opinion denying a preliminary injunction and granting in part a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 43)
Relevant passage: Memorandum opinion, part I (pages 1-2), part II.A (pages 5-6) and part V (page 47)
About this source
The 50-page opinion on the volunteer observers' challenge to restrictions on observing immigration court hearings, ruling on their renewed motion for a preliminary injunction and the government's motion to dismiss.
- Author
- Judge Rudolph Contreras, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
A Minnesota group's lawsuit says immigration courts are hiding behind locked doors, closed video conferencing
Relevant passage: Article, full text
About this source
MinnPost report on the lawsuit after a hearing in Washington, D.C., republished by Civic Media, including the federal regulation on open hearings and a response from a spokesperson for the immigration courts.
- Author
- Shadi Bushra, MinnPost (republished by Civic Media)
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
The Advocates for Human Rights Documents Ongoing Restrictions on Public Access to Immigration Court
Relevant passage: News post, paragraphs 1-6
About this source
The group's update on its immigration court observation lawsuit, describing restrictions it says continue at Fort Snelling and other immigration courts.
- Author
- The Advocates for Human Rights
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
The Advocates for Human Rights Files Federal Lawsuit to Protect Public Access to Immigration Court Hearings
Relevant passage: Press release, paragraphs 1-5
About this source
The group's announcement of its lawsuit over access to hearings at the Fort Snelling Immigration Court, with a statement from executive director Michele Garnett McKenzie and a list of the restrictions it challenges.
- Author
- The Advocates for Human Rights
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
The Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-00865 (D.D.C.), docket
Relevant passage: Docket entries 42-48 and the October 14, 2026, appeal entry
About this source
District court docket showing the September 3 order and opinion, the plaintiffs' October 9 notice of interlocutory appeal and the D.C. Circuit case number assigned on October 14.
- Author
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Volunteer court observers appeal after a judge declines to order immigration courts to restore public access to hearings
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/immigration-court-observers-public-access-appeal
The Dispute Index. "Volunteer court observers appeal after a judge declines to order immigration courts to restore public access to hearings". First published: 2026-10-21. Last updated: 2026-10-21. https://disputeindex.com/cases/immigration-court-observers-public-access-appeal