To a US Senator: support immigration court funding and Article I reform

Personalize. This letter is unusually well-positioned because it addresses operational and structural reforms that have bipartisan technical support. You are not asking your senator to take a contested partisan side — you’re asking them to support reforms most serious observers of the immigration system endorse.

Dear Senator [Last Name],

I’m writing as a constituent in [city/town] to ask you to support immigration court reform — both increased operational funding and structural reform under Article I of the Constitution.

The US immigration court backlog has crossed three million pending cases. Many people wait years for a hearing. The current operational pattern means the system is failing on multiple measures: people with weak claims who would have lost their cases get to stay for years and build lives; people with strong claims who would have won live in legal precarity for years; and the public’s confidence in the immigration system is undermined regardless of substantive policy preference.

The reforms required to address this are well-understood:

1. Substantial increases in immigration judge counts. Per-judge caseload remains far above sustainable levels. Doubling judge capacity over a defined timeline would meaningfully reduce average wait times.

2. Universal counsel for asylum seekers. Most respondents in immigration court appear without legal representation. Pilot programs providing counsel have consistently shown faster case resolution, better case quality, and higher relief rates for meritorious claims. The upfront investment pays for itself in reduced appeals and faster docket movement.

3. Article I court reform. Immigration courts are currently part of the executive branch (Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review). Making them an independent Article I court — like the Tax Court or the Court of Federal Claims — has had bipartisan technical support for over a decade. The American Bar Association, multiple federal judge organizations, and most immigration scholars have endorsed it. The political bandwidth has been the missing variable.

4. Modernized case management. EOIR’s case management infrastructure has improved but remains dated. Investment in technology, scheduling, and remote-hearing capacity (without trading due process for efficiency) would compound the operational gains.

[Personalize: connect to specific concern if applicable. Examples: “I work with immigrants in [role] and have seen [specific pattern]”; “My [family/community/workplace] has been affected by [specific delay or outcome]”; “I’m a [profession/role] who interfaces with the immigration system through [specific channel]”.]

These reforms are not partisan in the contested sense. They are operational and structural improvements that any serious observer of the immigration system endorses. The political bandwidth has been the constraint. I’m asking you to engage with the reforms on their merits.

I’d appreciate knowing your position on annual EOIR appropriations and on Article I court reform proposals.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

[Your name] [Your address]