Protest Erupts in Minneapolis Following Fatal Shooting by Immigration Officer
In January, Minneapolis witnessed mass protests after an immigration officer shot and killed local nurse Alex Preti. Among the demonstrators was David Kelsch, a recently retired immigration court judge who felt compelled to lend his voice to the outcry.
Kelsch, who served in immigration courts in Baltimore and Detroit, stated, “I really went there just to testify because lives were lost.” His visit to Minneapolis coincided with the protests igniting over Preti’s death, marking a troubling trend in the city where immigration officers have recently been involved in fatal incidents.
While Kelsch acknowledges some level of immigration enforcement is necessary, he criticizes the indiscriminate sweeps launched during the Trump administration. He argues that these sweeps strain community ties by capturing individuals with no criminal records. “There’s a right way and a wrong way to do it,” he emphasized, contending that current practices compromise societal fabric.
Kelsch, who was appointed as an immigration judge in 2018, expressed serious concerns about the functionality of immigration courts under the Trump administration. Upon resigning last September, he cited “personal reasons,” but voiced worries about the increasingly sterile environment for judges making critical decisions regarding deportations and immigration status.
Challenges Faced by Immigration Courts
Historically, immigration courts have operated under the Department of Justice, allowing judges a degree of independence in their rulings. However, with the current administration’s intervention, Kelsch and his peers reported that they felt pressure to expedite cases and adhere to directives from higher authorities.
The immigration court system is grappling with an overwhelming backlog of approximately 4 million cases. Searcy E. Owen, acting director of the Office of Immigration Review, highlighted that reducing this backlog is a priority for their agency. He stated, “This administration is committed to using every resource available to continue to adjudicate immigration cases fairly, swiftly, and uniformly.” Nevertheless, significant changes initiated during Trump’s presidency have engendered a “drastic decline” in adjudication efficiency.
Reimagining Immigration Case Management
Kelsch advocates for a transformative approach to immigration adjudication. He proposes abolishing immigration courts altogether and reassigning decision-making authority to asylum officials or similar experts. Drawing from his supervisory experience in asylum cases, he argues that these professionals are better equipped to evaluate the merits of asylum claims compared to traditional judges bound by existing court protocols.
Despite advocating for significant reforms, the Trump administration’s approach involved appointing many inexperienced judges, further complicating the landscape. There is a concern that even veteran immigration judges lack the understanding of the intricate political nuances surrounding asylum cases compared to specialized asylum officials.
Debate Over the Future of Immigration Courts
Not everyone shares Kelsch’s assessment that the immigration court system is beyond repair. Marie Celentino, director of the Mercy Immigration Clinic at the University of Detroit, disagrees, emphasizing that the system, while flawed, can benefit from increased funding, more judges, and enhanced judicial independence.
Celentino articulates that transferring immigration decisions from courts to government offices does not address her primary concern: the stark decline in legal status grants. Data from Syracuse University indicates that the rate of asylum approvals halved between August 2024 and August 2025, suggesting a troubling trend that could be attributed to the prevailing political climate rather than substantive changes in legal definitions.
Calls for institutional reform continue to grow, with many advocates suggesting that immigration courts should operate independent of the executive branch to insulate them from political influence. Kelsch recognizes this perspective, noting that such a move would bolster due process but may inadvertently reduce the courts’ efficiency.
