Judge Contreras says most of the observers' claims fail but two core claims remain
Rudolph ContrerasU.S. District Judge, District of Columbia, in a memorandum opinion
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.
Responding 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.
“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.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Volunteer court observers appeal after a judge declines to order immigration courts to restore public access to hearings
The Advocates for Human Rights and seven volunteer observers filed a notice of appeal on October 9, 2026, after U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras denied their request for a preliminary injunction against restrictions on observing immigration court hearings. The observers, led by a Minneapolis group that monitors the Fort Snelling Immigration Court, say immigration courts have locked courtrooms, shut observers out of remote hearings and moved cases to out-of-state judges without public notice. In a September 3 opinion, Contreras let two claims proceed, on remote-only hearings with no public access and on out-of-state judges without adequate notice, and dismissed the rest. He denied the injunction largely because the government had taken steps, including a June 2026 fact sheet on observing hearings, that lessened the risk of observers being shut out while the case continues.
Source and context
Original text
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
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.
After the quotation
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.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Executive Office for Immigration Review
More from this case
Read the full caseThe Advocates for Human Rights says immigration courts keep restricting public access without justification
The Advocates for Human Rights
“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.”Read statement
Immigration courts' spokesperson declines to comment on the lawsuit
Executive Office for Immigration Review
“declines to comment on litigation-related matters.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Judge Contreras says most of the observers' claims fail but two core claims remain
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6352-contreras-writes-that-most-of-the-observers-claims
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Judge Contreras says most of the observers' claims fail but two core claims remain". First published: 2026-10-21. Last updated: 2026-10-21. https://disputeindex.com/events/6352-contreras-writes-that-most-of-the-observers-claims