Rudolph Contreras
Role at the time: U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia, in a memorandum opinion
Mixed or conditional
Response to this claim
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.”
Read the original text (opens in a new tab)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 we used 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.