Key takeaways
– ICE lawyers now often skip saying their names in open court
– This breaks a long held rule of public access to trials
– Immigration courts have fewer protections than other federal courts
– Open hearings let the public check fair treatment
– Lawyers and judges risk ethical trouble by hiding identities
Immigration courts have a new problem. Lawyers for ICE no longer always state their names in hearings. Judges in New York began allowing the government side to stay unnamed. This shift removes a key part of a fair trial. The public must see who takes part in each case.
The Tradition of Open Courts
Our courts grew out of a fight against secret trials. Long ago in England a secret court used torture and silenced judges who ruled against the king. That court operated in hidden chambers. People called it the Star Chamber. They ended it in the 1600s.
When America formed its courts, it rejected secrecy. The new system let the public watch trials and check that judges did the right thing. Today Americans still hold to this idea. Courts have a duty to stay open unless there is a strong reason.
The New Practice in Immigration Courts
Immigration courts are not like other federal courts. They sit under the executive branch and not the judicial branch. Their judges serve at the governor of the courts pleasure. They can hire or fire them.
In June 2025 one judge told ICE lawyers they did not have to share their names in court. In July another judge listed the ICE lawyer as just the government side. In each case the immigrants lawyers spoke their names as normal.
Why They Hide Their Names
ICE agents have worn masks in public arrests for years. They say they fear for their safety. Now some ICE lawyers say the same thing. They argue it feels too risky to share their names.
Since no law requires lawyer names to be public, they see room to act. They worry someone might threaten them or map out their homes. Yet hiding names in open hearings is a big break with court tradition.
Legal Rules on Anonymity
Courts can hide names in rare cases. For example jurors face threats in major crime trials. The court may keep them secret if true danger exists. The trial judge must make that decision after careful review.
Parties sometimes use a fake name in cases on sexual abuse or to protect a child. A court must find a real risk of harm first. Then someone can file under a code name like Jane Doe.
None of these rules cover lawyers hiding names in regular open court. Immigration judges did not make any formal orders. They did not find safety risks in writing. They just let ICE lawyers slide by unnamed.
The Importance of Public Watching
In immigration court most people face removal from the country. They have no right to a lawyer from the court. Many go alone. They might not know the law or the process. They depend on the public to see the court run fairly.
When hearings stay open and public, observers can look for steps that break rules. They note if people get enough time or if the judge shows bias. They track how often immigrants win or lose. They watch if the language interpreters do right by them.
This work helps identify patterns of unfair treatment. It can fuel calls for better laws or more funding for legal help. Without public watching, mistakes and abuse can stay hidden.
Ethics and Accountability
All lawyers must follow ethics rules written by state bars. Those rules stress lawyers must not hide who they are. They must act with honesty in court. They must wear their badge as an officer of the legal system.
Judges also must follow conduct codes. They must respect public trust in justice. When judges let attorneys mask their names without clear safety reasons, they risk breaking these rules.
If someone spots a rule break, they or a lawyer watchdog group can file a complaint to the state bar. That group can investigate and even punish a lawyer or judge. But it needs proof. Public court watchers can collect that proof.
Why Immigration Courts Need More Openness
Immigration courts decide if a person can stay in the country. They weigh complex rules. They face a huge backlog of cases needing quick resolutions. This rush can let fairness slip.
Regular federal courts post their opinions online almost at once. They also let reporters and visitors in. Lower immigration courts rarely make their decisions public. This means we know very little about what they do most of the time.
As a result, any new decision to reduce openness matters more in these courts than elsewhere. Every hidden name is one less check on fairness. Every secret hearing is a win for mistakes that go unseen.
Balancing Safety and Transparency
Surely government lawyers face real threats at times. In past years some lost life in targeted attacks. In those cases courts can and should act to keep them safe.
Even then the court must write a clear order explaining why. It must name who asked to hide. It must find specific danger. Then the public can see why. They can challenge it if needed.
ICE lawyers skipping names without that process ends up in a legal gray area. The judges skip written orders and safety findings. They never invite public comment or review.
How to Keep Courts Fair
First judges in immigration court must stop letting any side stay unnamed without a formal order. They need to set a clear rule. That rule must match what other courts do.
Second courts should post decisions publicly. They need to open hearing rooms fully. They should welcome court watchers to report on fairness in real time.
Third lawmakers can step in. They can pass a rule that all immigration court hearings must stay open and name who speaks. They can require judges to prove real danger before granting anonymity.
Finally the public can use court watching to hold the system to account. Every observer who notes a missing name helps build a record of secrecy. That record can lead to rule changes or complaints against judges.
The Path Forward
Immigration courts face heavy pressure to process cases fast. Yet speed must not come at the cost of fairness or transparency. Open courts protect everyone. They let the public verify that people get due process.
If courts slide into secret proceedings they resemble the old Star Chamber. They let power hide behind closed doors. That path leads to mistakes and abuse.
By restoring public naming in hearings, posting decisions online and following clear rules on anonymity, immigration courts can keep their doors open. They can prove their work stands up to public review. In doing so they will honor the core promise of our legal system.