A group of former immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals members told a D.C. federal judge that legal services programs for unrepresented detained immigrants that the Trump administration stopped funding help the courts function more efficiently.

The programs at issue — the Legal Orientation Program, the Immigration Court Helpdesk, the Family Group Legal Orientation Program and the Counsel for Children Initiative — help noncitizens understand how the immigration court system works, their role in it and what rights they have, the former judges said in an amicus brief on Monday.

That translates into detained noncitizens needing less guidance from the court, asking for fewer continuances and better articulating why they are entitled to removal relief, lightening the burden on immigration judges, they said.

"These programs have been critical to the fair and efficient functioning of the courts. Terminating them will inevitably make the immigration courts less fair and less efficient," the former jurists said.

Among the programs' benefits, the judges said they speed up immigration court proceedings, and also reduce appeals, in absentia orders and detention expenditures.

The judges moved to file the amicus brief in a suit lodged by Amica Center For Immigrant Rights, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project and others on Jan. 31. The suit came in response to a stop work order from the DOJ pulling federal funding for the programs, and after the groups were barred from entering immigration detention centers to try to carry on their work anyhow.

The Trump administration agreed to restore access to the immigration detention centers and revoked the stop work order after the groups sued, but the fight continues over the funding for the programs, which was congressionally appropriated.

According to the brief, 67% of detained noncitizens lack attorney representation, and they require the most assistance. The former judges said the DOJ did not take time to understand the value of the programs, suggesting they were halted "without review — or apparent understanding — of their need and efficacy."

The judges said the programs need to be expanded, not reduced, arguing that even a brief suspension of the programs would disrupt the immigration court system and exacerbate the backlog, which stood at roughly 3.6 million cases at the end of 2024.

"We are deeply concerned that an overwhelmed immigration court system is being deprived of the resources and structure it needs to function properly. Eliminating the programs is a step in the wrong direction, burdening immigration judges, reducing efficiency, and limiting due process," the judges said.

Counsel for the former judges did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday. Counsel for the groups and the DOJ also did not immediately respond to press inquiries.

The groups are represented by Adina Appelbaum, Samantha Hsieh and Amelia Dagen of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights and Amer S. Ahmed, Richard W. Mark, Raena Ferrer Calubaquib, Apratim Vidyarthi, Naima L. Farrell, Laura Sturges, Patricia M. Herold, Josiah J. Clarke, Caelin Moriarity Miltko, Mason Stringer, Timoteo J. L'Esperance, Katie Marquart, Arthur M. Halliday and Alexander M. Fischer of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The federal government is represented by Yaakov M. Roth, Andrew I. Warden and Zachary W. Sherwood of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division.

The judges are represented by John R. Jacob of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

The case is Amica Center For Immigrant Rights et al. v. United States Department of Justice et al., case number 1:25-cv-00298, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

--Additional reporting by Madeline Lyskawa. Editing by Emily Kokoll.