Introduction
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) published a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 30, 2026, that would give Immigration Judges the practical tools to impose civil money penalties on individuals whose conduct delays, disrupts, or obstructs removal proceedings. This proposed rule on EOIR civil penalties for contempt of Immigration Judges would implement statutory authority that Congress granted nearly 30 years ago but that has never been put into enforceable regulations — leaving Immigration Judges without a meaningful mechanism to sanction courtroom misconduct. The proposal is not yet binding law; it represents EOIR’s formal request for public comment and a statement of regulatory intent that, if finalized, would reshape how immigration court proceedings are managed.
The Authority That Has Sat Unused Since 1996
Congress gave Immigration Judges the power to impose civil money penalties for contemptuous conduct when it passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That statute required the Attorney General to publish implementing regulations before the authority could be exercised, but those regulations were never finalized. In 2006, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed EOIR to draft such a rule specifically to give judges tools to control their courtrooms and deter fraud and abuse. Despite that instruction, the Department never completed the rulemaking.
Today, when an attorney or accredited representative engages in misconduct before an Immigration Judge, the judge’s only recourse is to file a disciplinary complaint through the same general process available to any member of the public — a process managed entirely by EOIR’s disciplinary counsel, not by the presiding judge. That gap is what this proposed rule is designed to close.
The Proposed Framework for Civil Money Penalties
The proposed rule would add Subpart H to 8 CFR Part 1003, establishing a complete framework for Immigration Judges to propose, and the Chief Immigration Judge to impose, civil money penalties for contemptuous conduct. The proposal defines five specific categories of conduct that could result in a penalty: repeated failures to appear or appear on time without good cause; repeated failures to comply with filing orders without good cause; disorderly or abusive behavior or language in and around the courtroom or in written filings; knowingly or recklessly making false statements of material fact or law, or offering false evidence; and willfully misleading, deceiving, or threatening any person concerning a matter related to a pending case.
The penalty schedule proposed is tiered: a first contempt order would carry a civil money penalty between $1,000 and $1,500; a second order between $1,500 and $2,500; and any subsequent order between $2,500 and $3,500. The Chief Immigration Judge, not the presiding Immigration Judge, would make the final penalty determination based on a clear and convincing evidence standard.
The rule frames this authority as an extraordinary, last-resort tool. Immigration Judges would be required to issue a warning, allow the individual an opportunity to respond, and only initiate the formal penalty process if the contemptuous conduct continued after that warning. EOIR’s stated rationale centers on two concerns: the agency’s backlog of more than 3.5 million pending cases, which makes procedural efficiency essential, and broader Administration priorities around deterring fraud and abuse of legal processes.
The proposed rule would also make conforming changes to the grounds for practitioner discipline, clarifying that conduct underlying a final civil money penalty order constitutes contumelious conduct for disciplinary purposes, and adding a new disciplinary ground for repeatedly failing to pay an ordered penalty.
Who Is Affected
The proposed rule identifies three categories of individuals who could be subject to civil money penalties. The first category is attorneys and accredited representatives who have filed a notice of appearance with the Immigration Court — whether a full appearance or a limited-scope appearance for document assistance. The second category is the respondents themselves — the individuals who are the subject of the removal proceedings. The third category is witnesses appearing in any Immigration Court proceeding, whether physically present or participating remotely by telephone or video.
The rule explicitly excludes from its scope attorneys who are employees or contractors of the federal government acting in their official capacity, as well as government witnesses acting in an official capacity. Government attorneys who appear in Immigration Court remain subject to DHS Office of Inspector General oversight and DHS’s own attorney discipline procedures.
Practical Implications
Immigration Attorneys
For immigration attorneys and accredited representatives, this proposed rule introduces a new category of professional risk that currently does not exist in the same form. A warning under this proposed framework would not expire at the end of a particular case — it would follow the individual across all future proceedings before any Immigration Court for one year from the date of issuance. An attorney who receives a warning in one proceeding could find that warning operative in an unrelated case before a different judge in a different city.
The “repeated failure” standard for appearance and filing violations is not a single-incident trigger. The proposal asks judges to consider the total number of failures, their proximity, their severity, and the actual prejudice caused to the proceedings. Emergency medical situations, severe weather, and documented technical difficulties are listed as potential “good cause” factors. But practitioners should understand that ordinary scheduling conflicts or routine case management challenges are unlikely to satisfy the good cause standard for repeated violations.
Respondents
For respondents — the individuals in removal proceedings — the rule’s implications are more limited in practice. The Department itself notes that the contemplated misconduct by a noncitizen subject to proceedings primarily involves conduct that disrupts the proceedings. Critically, no civil money penalty proceeding against a respondent can stay or otherwise interfere with the underlying removal case or any removal order.
For all covered individuals, the appeal process includes a $675 filing fee to challenge a Chief Immigration Judge’s penalty order before the Board of Immigration Appeals, with a tight 10-day deadline to file. The Board’s review is limited to the contempt record and cannot result in an increased penalty, but dismissal with prejudice at the Chief Immigration Judge level is final and not appealable.
Practitioners who fail to pay an imposed penalty face immediate suspension proceedings initiated by EOIR’s disciplinary counsel, with only a 15-day window to pay before a petition for suspension is filed.
What to Watch For Next
The public comment period closes on September 28, 2026. Written comments must be submitted electronically through the federal rulemaking portal using the docket number EOIR-26-AB02 or RIN 1125-AB02. The Department has invited comment on economic, environmental, and federalism effects, as well as the specific regulatory text. After the comment period closes, EOIR will review submissions and publish a final rule with responses to substantive comments. No effective date has been announced because the rule has not been finalized. The proposed rule specifies that its provisions would apply only to conduct occurring on or after the effective date of a final rule. Stakeholders who appear regularly before Immigration Courts — whether as practitioners or as representatives of organizations that work with respondents — should consider submitting comments and should monitor the docket for the final rule’s publication.
How Immigration Professional Association Can Help
At Immigration Professional Association, we work directly with the processes and practitioners that this proposed rule is designed to regulate. Our attorneys appear in Immigration Courts on behalf of individuals in removal proceedings, and we understand how procedural changes in the courtroom environment affect every aspect of case strategy — from how we manage hearing schedules to how we respond to judicial orders under tight timelines.
If you are an immigration attorney or accredited representative seeking to understand how this proposed framework would affect your practice before EOIR, or if you are a respondent in removal proceedings who wants to understand the full scope of obligations and rights under the existing and proposed rules, Immigration Professional Association can provide the focused guidance this moment requires. The comment deadline of September 28, 2026, is also a real opportunity for practitioners and affected parties to shape how this rule is finalized — and we can help you think through what to say and how to say it.
Contact Immigration Professional Association today to discuss what EOIR’s proposed civil money penalty framework means for your specific situation before Immigration Court.
