Trump's New Memo on Immigration Lawyers Triggers Legal System Controversy

Trump Administration Sets Sights on Immigration Legal Practices

A new directive from President Donald Trump has sparked discussions in the legal community, specifically regarding its implications for immigration attorneys. Targeting what he describes as "rampant fraud and meritless claims" within the immigration court system, Trump’s memo instructs the Justice Department to investigate lawyers engaged in unethical practices related to immigration cases.

Immigration attorney Mo Goldman from Tucson has voiced his concerns over the directive’s potential impact on the already pressured system that serves immigrants. He notes the dual supervision immigration attorneys face: "Not only are we being watched by an immigration judge for how we approach these cases, and many of these immigration judges already are coming out of already an enforcement background, but we also have an adversary," referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) counsel that counters immigration claims.

Statistics from the TRAC research group reveal that as of February, close to 75% of asylum requests in the U.S. were denied, highlighting the tough landscape for individuals navigating the immigration process. Goldman emphasizes the importance of immigration lawyers in this context, stating, "It’s really frustrating being in this position as an immigration attorney in 2025, where so many depend on immigration lawyers — both people who are not Trump supporters and people who are, we represent everybody." He articulates the delicate nature of guiding clients through their legal options amidst growing scrutiny and regulatory changes.

The recent directive also raises alarms regarding the consequences for law firms. It cautions against pursuing "baseless partisan lawsuits" against the administration, warning of potential repercussions including loss of security clearances and federal contracts. Goldman refutes the notion that these lawsuits are frivolous, asserting, "These are legitimate claims based on what the law and constitution requires."

Citing a recent legal case where the administration used an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador, Goldman points out that legal challenges to such actions are currently pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court. This situation illustrates the contentious interactions between immigration law, policy enforcement, and the rights of individuals in the legal system.