AMNA NAWAZ: Well, the Trump administration has fired more than 100 immigration judges as it moves to reshape the court system that polices deportations in this country.

Those sitting judges report it's led to a pressure campaign, as they're being pushed to meet the administration's policy goals, rather than the law itself.

Our Ali Rogin spoke with a judge at the center of it all.

ALI ROGIN: Unlike most federal courts, immigration courts are overseen by the Department of Justice itself.

That means judges are required to answer ultimately to the administration on whose policies they're ruling.

While immigration judges say every administration tries to shape the courts in their own image, the Department of Justice has taken more drastic measures during Trump's second term to ramp up deportations and fire judges they view as too lenient.

I'm joined now by Holly D'Andrea.

She has served as an immigration judge in Texas since 2019.

She's also president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, the union that represents the courts.

Judge D'Andrea, thank you so much for joining us.

How has this administration put pressure on immigration judges to achieve its agenda?

JUDGE HOLLY D'ANDREA, President, National Association of Immigration Judges: So, usually, the immigration judges have kind of a soft pressure from the presidency.

And it's more done through policy and just a very soft way of saying, like, hey, you should really be following the policy over the law.

But in the current administration, we have actually had a more firm pressure on the immigration judges, even sometimes having immigration judges threatened with actual disciplinary action if they follow the law, instead of following the policy.

ALI ROGIN: And we have seen a number of judges being fired.

How has that affected your caseload and morale within the courts?

JUDGE HOLLY D'ANDREA: Well, the morale is really low.

When you have had -- we have had at least 200 judges who have been fired, who have resigned, or who have retired because of the circumstances right now in the immigration court and their concerns about due process.

And, ultimately, all attorneys and judges in the United States owe a allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.

And due process is a part of that Constitution.

So a lot of judges felt conflicted and they have resigned under the current administration because of concerns about -- and due process concerns in the court.

It's definitely disheartening.

And when you're on the court every day, it makes your job a lot harder.

For each immigration judge that's fired, resigned or retired, that's the equivalent of 700 cases.

So those 700 cases have to be reassigned to another judge.

So if you do the math and whatever 700 times 200 is, that's the bare minimum of how many cases have been reset on other judges' dockets.

So some judges are hearing well above 1,000 cases, 10,000 cases.

Some, even 12,000 cases are sitting on their dockets waiting to be heard because of the firings that have occurred.

ALI ROGIN: The Department of Justice has also been hiring what it calls now deportation judges.

What are your concerns about the people who are seeking out and getting those jobs?

JUDGE HOLLY D'ANDREA: We don't know those judges.

They have just come on the bench.

Some may end up being very, very good judges, but we do have concerns about training and making sure that they're properly trained.

They have shortened the training process for judges to get onto the bench to be able to fill the need.

But it's a real concern, because you want judges who you know are going to be fair, and you want judges who are going to listen to the evidence that's on - - that's in each individual case.

And the lack of training really weighs in on how they're able to do that, especially as they're taking on large caseloads when they're new to the bench.

ALI ROGIN: The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Trump administration could end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian migrants.

How do you anticipate that is going to affect the work that you do?

JUDGE HOLLY D'ANDREA: Well, we will definitely probably see more of those cases.

There will be an increase in asylum cases and cases for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, no doubt, from those people who were -- who were under TPS.

ALI ROGIN: And there are a number of other court cases that pertain to the work you do, that pertain to immigration policy, many of which are actively being adjudicated right now, moving through different appeals, going through different statuses, changing rapidly.

How does that affect your work, this rapid change in some of the policies that you all are expected to follow?

JUDGE HOLLY D'ANDREA: Yes, it's a day-to-day struggle.

Every single day, the law is changing underneath us, and some days you don't know how that law is going to change.

For example, last week, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision regarding bonds, and we shifted our functioning in the immigration court to accommodate that decision.

And then the Fifth Circuit stayed the mandate, which means that they're waiting to hear the case en banc with the entire Fifth Circuit, instead of just the three judges that originally heard it, to review the case.

And so now, within just yesterday morning alone, we had to switch tactics again and go from granting bonds to not granting bonds, because the law was shifting that quickly.

ALI ROGIN: Wow.

And that's unprecedented, would you say?

JUDGE HOLLY D'ANDREA: Yes, that's definitely unprecedented.

But we have always had shifting law in the immigration courts.

Every four years under policy and the policy influence of the courts, the laws shift back and forth, and you have an ever-changing set of laws in the immigration court, which is one of the reasons why the National Association of Immigration Judges is advocating for an Article I court - - independent immigration court.

And that would take the court out from underneath the executive and make it an independent administrative court, so that you would no longer have that same policy influence every four years.

And that policy influence could go to the enforcement branches with the Department of Homeland Security, where it belongs.

ALI ROGIN: Judge Holly D'Andrea, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, thank you so much for joining us.

JUDGE HOLLY D'ANDREA: Thank you.