Immigration courts in Pa., N.J., and Del. issued record number of deportation orders in June

Immigration courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware are ordering people removed from the country in numbers not seen in at least a quarter century.

At the Philadelphia immigration court — which hears cases for most Pennsylvania and Delaware residents — orders of removal or voluntary departure rose 71%, from 1,230 in May to 2,105 in June. At New Jersey’s courts, orders rose 47%, from 2,348 to 3,446.

The figures are the highest since at least late 1997.

“We’re definitely seeing an increase in removal orders where we may not have seen them in the past,” said Emma Tuohy, a partner at Philadelphia’s Simon, Choi & Tuohy and a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Philadelphia chapter. “Cases are getting more difficult to win.”

June’s cases bring to more than 46,000 the number of removal and voluntary deportation orders courts across the three states have issued since President Donald Trump’s return to office — slightly more than the total issued over the entirety of former President Joe Biden’s term.

(A voluntary departure order requires an individual to leave the country but, unlike a removal order, does not legally bar them from returning.)

Local immigration attorneys say the surge in such orders reflects the Trump administration’s success in transforming immigration courts from independent arbiters of the law into components of a larger deportation machine. Immigration judges, they say, now often work in concert with government agents and attorneys to remove the maximum number of people from the country as quickly as possible, sometimes violating the due process rights of people who find themselves caught up in the system.

Lilah Thompson, chief of immigration in the Community Defense Unit at the Defender Association of Philadelphia, has seen the trend in her own practice.

“The immigration judges are on the same side as ICE and DHS, which is not supposed to be the case. They’re supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law,” Thompson said. “But that is not how it actually plays out.”

Unlike typical federal judges, immigration court judges are not independent judicial branch officials but executive branch employees within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency responsible for overseeing the nation’s immigration courts system.

EOIR officials declined an interview request for this article. In a statement, a Department of Justice spokesperson said: “The Justice Department is restoring integrity to our immigration system by hearing cases fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly, in accordance with the law.”

The states’ record high figures and sharp month-over-month increases match the trend nationwide, as the country saw such orders rise by a third, to nearly 87,000. Nationally, more than 960,000 of these orders have been issued since Trump returned to office.

June’s increases reflect a steady rise in such orders since then.

Compared with January 2025, removal and voluntary departure orders were up nearly 300% in Pennsylvania and Delaware, and more than 280% in New Jersey. Nationally, removal orders were up almost 160%.

The data were published by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data gathering and research organization that regularly acquires and analyzes such data from EOIR.

As the number of deportation orders has reached all-time highs, such orders have also come to represent the vast majority of deportation case outcomes.

In June, 90% of Pennsylvania and Delaware cases ended with an order of removal or voluntary departure. In New Jersey, 94% did. Nationally, about 89% of cases ended with such an order.

Since the start of Trump’s second term, more than 85% of cases have ended with such orders. Under Biden, about 44% did. About two-thirds of cases ended in a removal or voluntary departure order during Trump’s first term.

Rosina Stambaugh, a York-based immigration attorney, pointed to the faster pace of recent deportation cases as a major factor.

“They’re scheduling a final hearing in like two weeks. Before, we’d have at least a month to prepare,” Stambaugh said. “To prepare for a final hearing in just two weeks is insane. We used to have at least 30, sometimes 45 to 60, days to prepare for a hearing.”

The faster pace is in part the result of judges refusing to offer continuances, lawyers say. Before, it was ordinary for a judge to delay a hearing so an attorney had more time to prepare. That is no longer the case.

The change follows a series of rulings from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) — the highest administrative body for interpreting immigration laws. One such ruling largely prohibited judges from extending cases based on future eligibility for relief.

Stambaugh offered a client of hers as an example.

After the man was arrested in an ICE sweep, his fiancée, an American citizen, raced to file marriage paperwork. The couple were scheduled to get married the day after his hearing. Stambaugh asked the judge to delay issuing a ruling, as the impending marriage would have granted new grounds for protection from deportation. The judge refused and the man accepted a voluntary departure.

Tuohy pointed to another set of BIA decisions that has sped up cases — and made them harder to win.

Those rulings instruct judges to order someone removed before providing them with an opportunity for a full hearing of their case in some circumstances.

“So before anyone’s even had a chance to dive into the meat of the case — to really prepare evidence and prepare for the case — the judges are predetermining that the case is without merit and [removing] them,” Tuohy said.

The increasing number of detained individuals is another factor fueling the surge in deportations, according to lawyers.

In June, more than 11% of people receiving orders of removal or voluntary departure in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware were in detention. That is up from 7% in January 2025. Since Trump returned to office, about one in four people in the three states was detained, compared with about 7% during the Biden administration and 29% during Trump’s first term.

Stambaugh said that in the past, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents encountered someone without legal status who did not have a criminal record, they would usually just issue a notice to appear before a judge or even let them go after advising them to seek legal status. That has changed.

“It is 100% that ICE officers no longer have discretion in who they can detain,” Stambaugh said. “Now, if you come in contact with ICE and you’re not a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen, you’re detained.”

As more people are detained during deportation proceedings, a smaller share of them have a criminal record.

In June, just 1% of cases in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware ending in an order of removal or voluntary departure were brought on grounds alleging a criminal violation, matching the share nationally. The last time more than 5% of cases ending in an order of removal or voluntary departure were brought under a criminal charge was December 2024, the month before Trump took office for his second term.

“They’re trying to remove as many people as possible, and they’re going to go for low-hanging fruit, which is individuals out in the community who are doing nothing wrong,” Thompson said, referencing collateral arrests and those that have occurred during individuals’ ICE check-ins.

A series of BIA rulings last year have also led to a growing detained population, lawyers say. In the most consequential of those, the board prohibited immigration judges from granting bond to people who entered the country without permission — regardless of the length of time they had lived in the United States or whether they had a criminal record.

Previously, attorneys say they had adequate time to prepare cases. That is no longer true.

“When you have to do these cases in two weeks, you don’t really have much to work with because the main person who has to get you evidence is stuck in detention,” Stambaugh said. “That’s what makes these cases a lot harder.”

People with legal representation are far more likely to avoid an order of removal or voluntary departure. In June, 73% of such individuals in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware courts had their cases end in removal vs. 98% of those who lacked legal representation, similar to national figures and long-standing trends.

At the same time, the share of people without legal representation has steadily climbed in recent years.

In June, a little under 24% of individuals in deportation cases in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware had a lawyer. That is down from about 57% in January 2025. Since Trump returned to office, about one in three people in the three states had a lawyer, as compared with about 57% during the Biden administration and 52% during Trump’s first term.

Thompson, of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, said several factors were at play.

First, the demand for attorneys has increased alongside the volume of cases, swamping supply.

Second, cases both move more quickly and are more complex, limiting the number of cases attorneys can juggle at once.

“Our ability to take on cases is so much less now because what a case requires now is so much more,” she said.

And unlike Thompson and her colleagues, who offer their services at no charge, private lawyers are expensive and their fees reflect the increasing complexity of cases, meaning fewer people can afford them.

Tuohy suggested the increase in detention is likely also making it more difficult for people to afford legal services.

“You’re not working anymore if you’re in detention, right?” Tuohy said. “So then you’re asking your family to foot the bill, and that consideration [to hire an attorney] becomes even more difficult.”

Stambaugh suggested an additional factor: The flurry of policy changes has led to immigration courts so stacked in the government’s favor that many immigrants may regard hiring an attorney as a waste of money since they will likely face deportation no matter the strength of their case.

She has begun advising potential clients that their best option may be to keep their money and instead accept voluntary deportation.

“In my opinion, you’re going to have to go back [to your home country], so you might as well keep your money and go find somewhere to live,” Stambaugh said.

Methodology

For this story, The Inquirer analyzed deportation case data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) that were acquired and compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

The analysis excludes non-deportation cases, as removal and voluntary departure orders are not applicable in such cases. The analysis also excludes deportation cases where the case was dismissed because the government failed to file the notice to appear with the court by the initial hearing, as these cases were never considered on their merits.

The analysis groups charges as either criminal or immigration according to categorizations developed by TRAC based on the most serious charge on the NTA.