In an unprecedented development, U.S. immigration courts are witnessing government lawyers declining to disclose their names during public hearings.
This trend gained attention in June 2025 when Immigration Judge ShaSha Xu, presiding over a case in New York City, informed courtroom lawyers that their names would not be publicly acknowledged.
She rationalized this decision by expressing privacy concerns, stating, “Things lately have changed.”
Despite objections from immigration lawyers who argued that withholding names compromises the completeness of court records, Judge Xu maintained her stance.
Additionally, other judges, such as James McCarthy, referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys merely as “Department” during hearings, further underscoring this new practice.
Judge Shirley Lazare-Raphael mentioned in an interview with The Intercept that some ICE attorneys perceive disclosing their names publicly as potentially dangerous.
This event follows a trend where ICE agents have been observed wearing masks during arrests to obscure their identities, raising alarms among advocates for open courts.
The shift towards anonymity in immigration courts raises significant concerns about the principle of open courts, which has been a cornerstone of the U.S. legal system for centuries.
Historically, the American legal framework has championed transparency in judicial proceedings as a safeguard against the abuses of power seen in past secretive systems, notably the infamous Star Chamber in England.
Operating in secrecy from the 15th to the 17th centuries, the Star Chamber became a tool of oppression that punished individuals through torture and intimidation.
The chamber was ultimately abolished in 1641 due to widespread outcry over its abuses.
American courts were established with a strong commitment to openness, rejecting the secretive nature of proceedings that allowed for miscarriages of justice.
Today, the phrase ‘star chamber’ symbolizes any clandestine court proceeding that deviates from fairness and justice.
In the U.S. judicial system, the right to observe court proceedings is enshrined in the First Amendment, which implies a presumption of openness.
Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed this constitutional guarantee, stating that secrecy poses the gravest threat to justice.
Moreover, all federal appeals courts, alongside many state constitutions, uphold the principle of open courts, although some exceptions exist, such as protecting privacy or confidential information.
While there is no explicit legal requirement mandating public naming of lawyers, a default expectation leans toward transparency.
The absence of government lawyers identifying themselves in immigration courts represents a new departure from this tradition.
Legal expert Elissa Steglich noted that she had never encountered a situation where attorneys in open court remained unidentified.
The lack of identification may hinder accountability, particularly if ethical issues arise regarding the conduct of these attorneys.
Although anonymity is sometimes granted in the judiciary, it typically occurs only under specific conditions.
For instance, jurors may be kept anonymous only in cases where there is a substantial risk of harm, such as in organized crime cases.
Even in these instances, attorneys still possess knowledge of the jurors’ identities.
Similarly, parties in lawsuits can use pseudonyms under certain conditions, particularly in sensitive matters like sexual abuse, where threats of retaliation are present.
However, these exceptions are strictly regulated and require proper judicial examination.
The anonymity of ICE lawyers in immigration courts, however, does not follow such formal procedures.
There lacks a legal framework or any prior court ruling that permits this secrecy, nor are there established safety findings substantiating the need for anonymity among these government lawyers.
Immigration courts, classified as administrative rather than judicial entities, operate under the executive branch, setting them apart from regular federal courts.
They resolve claims related to individuals’ rights to remain in the U.S., either when the government seeks deportation or when individuals seek asylum.
Immigration judges experience less job security compared to their counterparts in federal courts, as they can be dismissed like other employees in the Department of Justice.
Additionally, immigrants in these courts face fewer procedural protections than those accused of crimes; they do not have the right to court-appointed counsel and often must represent themselves.
Many immigrants appear in these proceedings without legal representation, which has been shown to significantly influence the outcomes of their cases.
The availability of court records in immigration proceedings is also limited compared to federal court cases, complicating public oversight.
For years, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which serves as the highest immigration court, has made less than one percent of its decisions publicly accessible.
Following a federal court ruling mandating more transparency, the Board now posts decisions online, yet lower court proceedings remain mostly opaque.
Given the reduced oversight in immigration courts, public observation is even more critical.
Open courts not only safeguard legal procedure but also uphold democracy.
When the public can observe the judicial process, it instills trust and confidence in the fairness of the system.
Court watching has emerged as an essential practice for citizens to ensure that due process is honored, especially within the realm of immigration.
Such observations can serve to validate whether legal processes are upheld, while also highlighting issues such as lack of legal representation and procedural inequities that arise.
Community members acting as court watchers help promote transparency that can lead to much-needed reforms in the immigration court system.
As a law professor focused on professional ethics, I underscore that even without a statutory requirement for ICE lawyers to disclose their identities, they are still governed by established codes of conduct that demand accountability and transparency.
State bar associations enforce attorney conduct standards during court proceedings, reaffirming that lawyers serve as “officers of the legal system” responsible for upholding its integrity.
Even immigration judges are bound by codes of conduct that maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
When judges permit or condone anonymity without proper protocols, they risk failing their ethical obligations.
Bar associations hold the authority to investigate potential violations of professional conduct, imposing sanctions when necessary.
Though historical enforcement against federal attorneys has been rare, thorough documentation collected by court observers could constitute evidence for formal complaints.
Despite the genuine safety concerns faced by government attorneys and judges, the practice of concealing identities in open court conflicts with centuries of legal tradition advocating for accountability and transparency.
As the urgency to process immigration cases quickly escalates, courts must adhere to their ethical and legal responsibilities, ensuring that a faster pace does not compromise fundamental fairness and transparency.
image source from：pennlive
