The United States’ largest federal appeals court is preparing to revisit how it handles its vast immigration caseload after a dispute among judges exposed deep disagreements over court procedures.
Chief Judge Mary Murguia announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will reassess the way it manages deportation-related appeals, including the mechanism that temporarily halts removals while cases are reviewed.
The decision follows a clash triggered by a ruling from several judges appointed by Donald Trump, who argued that a long-standing court practice allowing temporary pauses in deportations was unlawful and prone to misuse.
Murguia revealed the review while issuing a concurring opinion in a case involving a Peruvian family whose deportation had been delayed for more than a year due to the court’s procedures. She noted that the court’s executive committee has already begun evaluating “the most efficient way” to handle the court’s heavy immigration workload, including rules governing stays of removal.
The process could affect a growing number of appeals as immigration enforcement intensifies and more deportation cases reach the appellate level.
At the center of the controversy is a general order adopted in 2002. Under that policy, migrants who request a stay of removal automatically receive a short-term pause in deportation while judges review the request. Critics argue the system often stretches those brief pauses into months-long delays while appeals move through the court.
A three-judge panel previously examined the issue during the Peruvian family’s case. Judges Ryan Nelson, Daniel Collins and Lawrence VanDyke concluded that the existing approach had allowed migrants to secure extended reprieves based on weak filings. In their view, the practice had effectively halted deportations across hundreds of cases for lengthy periods.
To address the problem, the panel ordered the court clerk to fast-track future stay requests, directing them immediately to the next available panel capable of handling emergency motions.
Murguia criticized that step, saying the panel had overstepped by altering the court’s internal policy structure on its own. She argued that such administrative changes should come through the court’s formal policymaking system rather than a single judicial ruling.
The full court later stepped in, voting to rehear the case and nullify the earlier panel’s decision. The matter has now been handed to an 11-judge en banc panel for reconsideration.
That larger panel ultimately lifted the temporary protection that had prevented the Peruvian family’s deportation. However, Murguia emphasized that the broader legal question about the court’s stay procedures would be addressed separately through internal administrative review rather than through the outcome of this case.
Not all judges agreed with that approach. In a separate opinion, Eric Tung criticized the court’s handling of the dispute, arguing that the issue was being pushed into committee review rather than resolved through a clear legal ruling.
The case, Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, has become a focal point in an ongoing debate within the court about how immigration appeals should be processed and how much authority individual panels have to reshape long-standing procedures.
