Navigating the Labyrinth: A Comprehensive Guide for Journalists Seeking Access to U.S. Immigration Hearings and Records

By Anne Marie Tamburro and Frank D. LoMonte

In Brief: Immigration proceedings are legally presumed open to the public and the press, yet the daily reality of reporting on America’s administrative courts reveals a fragmented, highly restrictive landscape. While the legal foundation for media access is weaker and far more uncertain than in criminal or civil courts, journalists who understand the governing regulations, anticipate bureaucratic roadblocks, and assert their rights professionally can successfully pierce the veil of secrecy.

Deported in the Dark: The Murky State of Media Access to America’s Most Dysfunctional Courts

When reporters from Maryland’s Capital News Service arrived at the suburban Hyattsville Immigration Court to cover routine docket proceedings, they encountered an unwelcome and legally dubious surprise: a presiding judge’s directive to selectively exclude journalists—while permitting other members of the general public—from entering the audience gallery.

The directive, issued in October 2025, was swiftly rescinded after drawing intense scrutiny and several days of adverse public and institutional publicity. However, the episode laid bare the precarious nature of media access to immigration court hearings. It starkly illustrated how administrative judicial bodies, historically accustomed to operating in total obscurity far from the public eye, are struggling to adapt to a new media reality where local immigration cases routinely transform into headline-grabbing national news stories.

As immigration policy remains a central flashpoint in American politics, the demand for rigorous, on-the-ground journalism has never been higher. Yet, reporters attempting to cover these proceedings often find themselves locked out—sometimes literally—by a system that lacks the constitutional transparency protections of traditional Article III courts.

1. Main Facts: Understanding the Machinery of Immigration Adjudication

To effectively cover the immigration court system, journalists must first grasp that these tribunals are fundamentally different from traditional American courts.

Immigration courts are not Article III judicial bodies operating under the judicial branch; rather, they are administrative tribunals housed directly within the executive branch under the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically managed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The lifecycle of an immigration case typically follows a distinct trajectory:

• Master Calendar Hearings: These are brief, administrative initial hearings where the respondent (the noncitizen) is informed of their rights, charges are read, and pleas or requests for more time to find legal counsel are entered. Multiple cases are usually scheduled for the same time slot.
• Individual Merits Hearings: These function much like traditional trials. This is where substantive evidence is introduced, expert testimony is heard, and cross-examinations take place regarding asylum claims, withholding of removal, or cancellation of deportation.
• Appeals: Decisions made by immigration judges can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Unlike trial courts, the BIA routinely decides appeals based entirely on written legal briefs and administrative records rather than live oral arguments.

While the DOJ’s own administrative rules establish a baseline presumption that these hearings are open to the public and the press, the enforcement of these rules varies wildly from one jurisdiction—and one courtroom—to another.

2. Chronology: The Evolution of Media Access and Recent Legal Clashes

The friction between the federal government’s administrative secrecy and the First Amendment rights of the press is not new, but it has evolved significantly over the past several decades.

• Pre-9/11 Era: Immigration hearings were historically treated as obscure administrative matters with virtually zero mainstream media presence. Public and press access was rarely requested, and even more rarely contested.
• The Post-September 11 Crackdown: In the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the DOJ—under the "Creppy directive"—attempted to close "special interest" immigration cases to the public and press entirely. This led to a major constitutional showdown in the federal appeals courts, resulting in conflicting rulings that remain unresolved today.
• The Digital Transition (2010s–2020s): The EOIR began implementing electronic filing and virtual hearing platforms, a process accelerated dramatically by the COVID-19 pandemic. While technology theoretically offered new avenues for remote access, it also introduced new technical barriers and discretionary powers for judges to restrict video or audio streaming.
• October 2025: The Capital News Service incident in Hyattsville, Maryland, highlighted ongoing local resistance to press presence, proving that even as national attention surges, individual judges maintain sweeping localized control over courtroom doors.

3. Supporting Data and Legal Realities: The Unsettled Constitutional Landscape

One of the greatest challenges for legal reporters is navigating the patchwork of federal appellate decisions regarding the First Amendment and deportation proceedings.

Unlike criminal trials—where the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly affirmed a robust constitutional right of public and press access under Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia—the high court has never directly ruled on whether a similar First Amendment right applies to immigration hearings.

Consequently, federal circuits are deeply divided:

• The Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) has firmly recognized a constitutional right of public and press access to immigration proceedings.
• The Third Circuit (covering Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) has directly rejected the constitutional argument, leaving journalists in those states reliant solely on administrative regulations rather than constitutional protections.

Because the Supreme Court has declined to step in and resolve this jurisdictional split, journalists must rely primarily on Department of Justice regulations. These regulations explicitly state a baseline presumption that hearings are open, providing a vital tool for reporters pushed back by recalcitrant court staff.

4. Official Responses and Institutional Bureaucracy

When journalists encounter resistance, the response from court administrators typically falls back on administrative discretion, security concerns, or courtroom capacity limits.

The EOIR maintains that its immigration judges possess broad inherent authority to maintain order and protect sensitive information. However, press freedom advocates argue that this discretion is frequently weaponized to avoid public accountability.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                  Quick Reference: What Journalists Should Remember       |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Topic                        | Key Takeaway                             |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Hearings                     | Usually presumed open by regulation      |
| Press Priority               | Officially recognized in DOJ guidelines  |
| Constitutional Right         | Unsettled and varies by federal circuit  |
| BIA Decisions                | Increasingly accessible via databases    |
| Case Files                   | Frequently limited, especially online    |
| Sealed Records               | Common in sensitive asylum/security cases|
| Detention-Center Hearings    | Present severe physical access barriers  |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------------+

Official government responses to records requests often cite privacy exemptions, law enforcement sensitivities, or national security concerns. Furthermore, government attorneys routinely request protective orders to seal filings. Once records are sealed, immigration judges are instructed to close otherwise open hearings during any discussion of those documents.

Alarmingly, protective orders sealing court records remain in effect indefinitely by default unless formally vacated by a judge. For immigrants and their legal counsel, the stakes are dangerously high: anyone caught leaking sealed records faces severe penalties, including being deemed permanently ineligible for discretionary relief.

5. Implications: The Human Cost and the Need for Rigorous Oversight

The opacity of the immigration court system is not merely a procedural headache for working journalists; it has profound implications for American democracy and the rule of law.

Immigration courts make life-or-death decisions that routinely separate families, determine legitimate asylum claims for individuals fleeing persecution, and quietly shape de facto national immigration policy out of the public eye. When these courts operate in the dark, systemic backlogs, due process violations, and administrative errors go unchecked.

Public oversight is entirely dependent on journalists being physically or virtually present in courtrooms, systematically demanding access to public records, and documenting how federal laws function in practice.

Practical Reporting Tips for Media Professionals

Navigating immigration courts requires a blend of legal literacy, administrative persistence, and diplomatic assertiveness. Journalists embarking on this beat should keep the following strategies in mind:

1. Verify Court Schedules Early: Immigration dockets change frequently. Always call the court administrator or check automated status lines before traveling to a hearing.
2. Cite the Regulations: If challenged by court staff or bailiffs, politely reference the EOIR regulations establishing that immigration hearings are presumptively open to the public.
3. Establish Relationships with Court Clerks: Cultivating a professional, courteous relationship with local court administrators can yield invaluable guidance on local docket quirks and judge preferences.
4. Prepare for Detention Facility Hurdles: Many hearings take place inside secure detention centers where jail protocols override normal court access rules. Request access weeks in advance and document any denials in writing.
5. Scrutinize State Public Records Limits: When investigating detainees held in local county jails, do not assume state Freedom of Information (FOI) laws automatically apply. Federal confidentiality rules often conflict with state transparency mandates. Look to access-friendly jurisdictions like Michigan for positive legal precedents.
6. Leverage Online Databases: Utilize digital repositories like the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University to obtain data-driven context that complements courtroom reporting.

By combining persistence with a firm grasp of administrative law, reporters can break through institutional barriers, ensuring that America’s immigration courts remain accountable to the public they serve.