Access Issues Resurface at Baton Rouge Immigration Court
Eight days after The Lens reported on growing concerns regarding limited public access to hearings at the Baton Rouge Immigration Court, acting chief judge Sherron Ashworth responded with an email intended to clarify the situation.
In her message, Ashworth firmly denied any claims that the court had prohibited public access to proceedings. She instructed court officials to ensure compliance with federal law, stating, “with limited exceptions, all hearings in immigration court are presumed public.” Ashworth warned employees that failure to uphold these legal standards could lead to disciplinary action.
Her email came amidst a federal lawsuit filed by the nonprofit organization Human Rights Defenders, which claims that the U.S. Department of Justice, along with its subsidiary, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), has not guaranteed individuals’ First Amendment rights regarding access to immigration court hearings. This situation has drawn criticism amid accusations of repeated violations of due process for migrants.
According to the rights group, without public oversight, government officials may violate human rights without repercussions. They emphasized the urgent need for monitors to assess the human impact of increasingly stringent government tactics in court and to verify that migrants are treated fairly.
The ongoing lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., highlights Baton Rouge as a case study in unlawful denial of access to immigration hearings. The plaintiffs assert that officials consistently barred members of the public from attending individual hearings, a trend that began last year.
Among the local plaintiffs is Bonnie Byland, a retired Louisiana teacher, who reported being denied entry to immigration proceedings by court officials and security guards on 13 occasions from November 2025 to May 2026. In a particularly notable instance, when Byland asked a judge about her denied access, he indicated that the details of the hearing were sensitive but suggested the defendant could sign a waiver allowing her presence. However, he expressed skepticism about the defendant’s ability to understand the waiver.
After encountering barriers to accessing immigration courts in Minneapolis, the civil rights organization filed their lawsuit in March. This legal action calls for the Department of Justice to provide transparency whenever public access to court proceedings is restricted. Joining Byland in the lawsuit in June was Nancy Grush, a volunteer court monitor from Baton Rouge.
EOIR had been informed about the pattern of access denials several months before Ashworth’s communication. A complaint was submitted in October 2025, urging EOIR to enforce public entry regulations. Notably, during a reporter’s attempt to attend a private hearing in Baton Rouge on June 17, he was denied access by court officials, who cited the judge’s discretion.
Days after the lawsuit was filed, Ashworth sent an email reiterating the court’s open-access policy to staff. This message followed another from EOIR Director Darren Margolin, asserting the daily public accessibility of EOIR’s immigration courts. On the same day, Justice Department attorneys submitted a memo supporting a motion to dismiss the case, citing Ashworth’s reassurance that denying public access is not an established policy.
Ashworth’s affidavit indicates that she stressed the importance of public access in her communication to staff, which is time-stamped before any other engagement on the issue. She emphasized that any inaccurate statements regarding access rules do not reflect the policy at the Baton Rouge Immigration Court.
Interestingly, the Department of Justice has also implied that security guards bear responsibility for miscommunication regarding access. Their memo suggests that claims of sporadic denials of access stemmed from “alleged confusion” on the part of court staff and security personnel, despite Byland’s experiences of being refused entry on multiple occasions and a confirmation from a court clerk that public attendance was restricted.
Issues of access persisted even after Ashworth’s email; monitoring volunteers reported ongoing difficulties entering courtrooms. For example, Jami Prince, a courtroom volunteer, faced repeated denials before finally gaining entry on June 29. After retrieving Ashworth’s email, which confirmed public access was permitted, Prince was allowed inside. However, upon entering Courtroom 3, she encountered resistance from the judge, who initially insisted the hearing was private. Eventually, with the defendant’s permission, she witnessed the proceedings, marking a rare instance of successful access under the current circumstances.
