ANALYSIS: The backlog is decreasing, while the number of judgments rendered in absentia is skyrocketing

A number goes down. A door closes

3,469,569 pending cases

The U.S. government can finally show a downward trend. At the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, the Executive Office for Immigration Review had 3,469,569 pending cases, down from 3,924,993 at the end of 2024. In nine months, the courts received 391,145 new cases and resolved 660,343.

This decline is real. It deserves to be acknowledged. But a judicial backlog can decrease because the justice system becomes more accessible, faster, and better resourced; it can also decrease because tens of thousands of cases are resolved without the person at the center of the proceedings. The statistic alone does not tell us which of these worlds we inhabit.

The backlog is falling. Doubt, however, is skyrocketing.

281,867 decisions rendered in absentia

The same official dashboard reports 281,867 removal orders issued in absentia during the first nine months of fiscal year 2026. The average is 31,319 per month. In 2025, the EOIR had counted 311,130 over twelve months. The pace has therefore accelerated significantly.

A removal order is not yet a physical deportation. It remains a weighty legal decision, issued without the person being present to respond. When this process helps clear the backlog, this administrative “victory” warrants a second look.

The word “backlog” hides lives held in limbo

A warehouse of delays

Backlog. Arrears. Two management terms that seem to describe stacked boxes. In reality, each file may contain an asylum application, an appeal against deportation, a family torn apart by uncertainty, or a person awaiting permission to stay or an order to leave. The backlog therefore reflects institutional failure as much as it does administrative volume.

For years, the increase served as proof of failure. Now that it’s reversing, the administration wants to see it as proof of efficiency. But a justice system doesn’t become just simply because it produces more outcomes. It becomes just when the outcome follows a process that the person has actually been able to understand and engage with.

A closed case is not necessarily a case that has been heard.

Two metrics, two partial truths

As of the end of June, EOIR had 3.47 million pending cases within its jurisdiction. TRAC, based on case-by-case data, reported approximately 3.2 million. These figures are not interchangeable: the definitions, databases, and processing dates differ. Comparing them allows us to see a trend, not to fabricate a precision that does not exist.

This caution is important. The immigration debate loves to cherry-pick the number that best fuels its anger. Rigor begins with refusing to conflate the figures. There has been a substantial decrease in the backlog. There is also a difference between the counting systems. Both facts can coexist.

June 2026: 100,000 cases closed in one month

100,773 cases closed

TRAC recorded 100,773 case closures in June 2026, a record high in its data series. Of these, 78,882 were removal orders, 7,689 were voluntary departures, 8,417 were completed proceedings, 1,883 were grants of protection, and 3,902 were other outcomes. Removal orders accounted for 78.3% of the cases closed.

The speed is remarkable. The composition is even more so. When nearly eight out of ten cases are removal orders and fewer than two out of every hundred result in protection being granted, the reduction in the backlog can no longer be described as merely a fix to a leaky pipe. It represents a shift in the system’s direction.

One hundred thousand doors have opened and closed. Most have closed again.

68% Without the Person Present

TRAC indicates that 68% of the individuals subject to a removal order in June were not present at the hearing where it was issued. This percentage does not prove that 68% had not received notice. Nor does it prove that all of them had voluntarily abandoned their cases.

It establishes something simpler: absence has become a major component of court proceedings. If these proceedings account for part of the reduction in the backlog, then the central question is not merely how many cases were completed. It is how many were actually heard.

The law does not allow for automatic dismissal without a hearing

Clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence

The Congressional Research Service reiterates the rule: when a person fails to appear, the judge must order a deportation in absentia if the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates, through clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, that the notice of hearing was provided and that the person is eligible for deportation.

This requirement matters. Absence does not relieve the government of the burden of proving notification; it makes that proof even more important, because no one is there to say that the letter never arrived, that the address was outdated, or that the date had changed.

An empty seat is not a confession.

Remedies exist, but only after the fact

An order entered in absentia may be set aside if the person demonstrates exceptional circumstances, such as a serious illness, failure to receive the notice, or federal or state incarceration. The law therefore provides that not all absences constitute waivers.

But a remedy after the order is issued does not eliminate the imbalance. You must learn of the decision, find legal assistance, meet the deadlines, gather evidence, and convince the court to reopen the case. The door isn’t welded shut. It has simply become much heavier.

The administration’s response: speed, fairness, consistency

An official priority

The Department of Justice explained to KPBS that expedited hearings are part of its effort to reduce the backlog and that it seeks to handle cases fairly, quickly, and consistently, in accordance with the law. This response should not be misrepresented. A backlog of several million cases also undermines justice through delay.

Years of delays weaken evidence, prolong uncertainty, and prevent both legitimate protections and legally justified dismissals. Slowness is not a virtue. The problem begins when speed ceases to be a means of hearing cases more quickly and becomes a means of concluding them without a hearing.

Slow justice can be cruel. So can rushed justice.

The True Test of Effectiveness

An effective institution should not have to choose between taking forever and doing nothing. It should measure notification times, the ability to reach the parties, representation rates, motions to reopen cases, acknowledged errors, and the proportion of decisions upheld after appeal.

Yet public success is based primarily on volume: cases filed, cases resolved, and pending cases. These are necessary metrics. They are not enough to determine whether the process has improved in quality. Counting faster does not yet mean judging better.

“Mega master calendars” are changing the pace

Hundreds of Hearings Consolidated

Immigrant rights advocates and researchers cited by KPBS describe the “mega master calendar hearings” launched in late May: hundreds of cases scheduled over short periods. In San Diego, their study compares a regular hearing scheduled about five months in advance with a consolidated hearing announced with thirty days’ notice.

In the example involving the same judge, the regular hearing included 27 cases and no orders entered in absentia; the consolidated hearing included 90 cases and resulted in 51 orders entered in absentia. One example does not establish a national trend. It does, however, reveal a pattern that must be examined everywhere: less time, more cases, more empty seats.

When the docket accelerates, service of process becomes a matter of freedom.

A 55% jump in June

The analysis cited by KPBS recorded more than 53,000 default orders in June—a 55% increase from May, which the authors noted was already a record. In a court near Boston, the number of default orders rose from six in May to 307 in June. In Hartford, nearly 90% of completed cases reportedly resulted in a default judgment.

These local discrepancies call for an investigation, not a lazy generalization. They suggest that the policy is not being implemented uniformly across the board. Where the curve becomes nearly vertical, the system must explain what has changed before calling the result a success.

There are many causes of non-appearance. Ideology accepts only one

The narrative of voluntary abandonment

The Center for Immigration Studies interprets the surge in orders issued in absentia as evidence that many people—particularly asylum seekers—did not actually intend to pursue their cases. It points out that more than 90,000 orders issued in absentia in the third quarter involved individuals who had filed asylum claims.

This figure deserves attention. The single explanation does not. Filing a claim and then missing a hearing may indicate abandonment; it may also reflect a failure to serve notice, a move, illness, detention, confusion, or the inability to find assistance. Aggregated data does not distinguish between these causes.

An absence is a fact. The intention behind it is a matter for investigation.

The opposite narrative is just as dangerous

It would also be wrong to claim that every empty seat proves a denial of due process. The law requires notification and provides for remedies. Some people choose not to appear. Some abandon their claims. Some know exactly what their absence means.

The honest defense of due process does not consist of inventing the perfect innocence of everyone. It consists of refusing to let the system transform a statistical category into a moral diagnosis. Neither “fraudster” nor “victim” can be automatically inferred from an empty box.

The decline in the stock is due to two trends

Fewer new cases, more cases resolved

In 2024, the EOIR received 1,783,905 new cases and closed 705,249. In 2025, new cases had fallen to 562,375, while cases closed reached 798,808. For the first nine months of 2026, there were 391,145 new cases and 660,343 cases closed.

The backlog is therefore decreasing because the trend has reversed. It is not only that judges are ruling more quickly; it is also that the influx of new cases has slowed considerably compared to 2024. Attributing the entire decline to default judgments would be just as misleading as ignoring them.

A reservoir empties through both outflow and inflow.

The border shifts the court’s caseload

Policies on detention, release, expedited removal, and the issuance of Notices to Appear determine what comes before the judges. The courts do not control their own caseload on their own. An administration can reduce new cases by handling more situations outside the judicial system or by altering border flows.

This shift matters politically. A smaller backlog can mean shorter wait times to appear before a judge. It can also mean more decisions being made elsewhere, under different safeguards. The court caseload never tells the whole story of immigration policy.

Legal representation becomes the silent variable

A complex procedure without a universal right to an attorney

Immigration proceedings are civil in nature. Individuals do not have the same guaranteed right to a state-funded attorney as they do in criminal proceedings. They may be represented at their own expense or with the assistance of organizations, but many navigate address changes, notices, motions, and deadlines on their own.

The official record of orders issued in absentia does not, on its own, reveal how many had a lawyer. Yet, as a timeline tightens, access to someone who understands the system becomes less of an advantage and more of a mechanism for procedural survival. This statistical silence should be as troubling as the curve is impressive.

The faster the system moves, the more legal aid becomes a safety belt.

The cost of a mistake is not symmetrical

A postponed hearing costs the court time and resources. A missed hearing can cost a person the right to file their petition before an order is issued. Both costs are real. They do not carry the same weight.

That is why the quality of service should be publicized with the same pride as the number of cases closed. How many notices were returned? How many motions cite failure to receive service? How many are granted? Without these numbers, efficiency remains a portrait with its hands cut off.

Monthly averages show the acceleration

From 2,861 to 31,319

In 2016, the EOIR averaged 2,861 orders in absentia per month. In 2019, 7,616. In 2023, 13,375. In 2024, 18,625. In 2025, 25,928. For the first nine months of 2026, the average reached 31,319.

The data series includes the sharp decline in 2021, marked by the disruptions of the pandemic, and cannot be interpreted as a perfectly comparable trend. But the recent growth is too strong to be attributed solely to administrative changes: the system now processes—in the absence of such changes—more than ten times the monthly volume of 2016.

31,319 per month. A trend can become the norm without ever being formally adopted.

The backlog is declining more slowly than confidence

Every order can be legally justified. The sheer volume, however, creates an additional institutional obligation: to demonstrate that notification, access, and appeals are keeping pace. The higher the volume rises, the less sufficient it is to simply invoke the rule.

Public trust does not demand that decisions be halted. It demands proof that the acceleration has not turned a formal guarantee into an obstacle course. An administration confident in its procedures should be eager to publish this evidence before the courts demand it on a case-by-case basis.

Efficiency without quality creates a judicial backlog

Motions to reopen cases will resurface

If some of the default judgments are based on notices that were never received or on exceptional circumstances, the cases do not truly disappear. They simply move to a different column. They will resurface in the form of motions to reopen, appeals, requests for stays, and constitutional challenges.

Rapid closure can thus create a second backlog, one that is harder to see. Today we gain one case in the “completed” column, but tomorrow we’re left with a more complex proceeding, burdened by the human and legal costs of the initial default.

A door slammed shut too quickly often comes back as an appeal.

Measuring sustainability, not spectacle

The right indicator isn’t just the number of cases closed this week. It’s the proportion of outcomes that hold up upon review, the total time to a final decision, the number of reopenings granted, and the system’s ability to correct its errors without waiting for a crisis.

These metrics are less photogenic. Yet they would reveal whether the reduction is sustainable. A solid institution doesn’t just celebrate how quickly it acts; it checks how many decisions still stand once the person is back in the courtroom.

Trump deserves credit for the decline. Not a blank check

Recognizing the actual result

Under the Trump administration, the official backlog has declined significantly. New cases have dropped sharply compared to 2024, and case closures have outpaced new cases. After years in which the backlog seemed doomed to grow, this reversal matters. To deny it out of partisan reflex would be dishonest.

But being a critical Trump supporter means precisely this: giving credit for the decline without whitewashing the method, acknowledging the effectiveness without calling every acceleration “justice,” and demanding that the administration prove that empty seats have not become its favorite shortcut.

A result deserves credit. A method deserves scrutiny.

The Moral Boundary of Power

A government elected to enforce immigration law has the right to do so. It does not have the right to treat the process as an expensive formality. Public order gains nothing when speed makes decisions more vulnerable, more contested, and less credible.

Sustained firmness rests on notices served, accessible hearings, reasoned decisions, and addressed appeals. Everything else offers immediate statistical satisfaction at the cost of future legal fragility.

What the EOIR Should Publish Now

The Missing Table

For each court and each type of docket, the EOIR should disclose the average notice period, the number of notices returned, the representation rate, orders entered in absentia, motions to reopen, their grounds, and their outcomes. It should also clearly distinguish between regular hearings and consolidated sessions.

This data would allow for testing of opposing narratives. If absences are overwhelmingly voluntary despite reliable notices, the public needs to know. If shortened notice periods or schedule changes contribute to the phenomenon, the public needs to know that with the same precision.

Transparency is the bail hearing of a statistic.

A Policy That Defies the Data

Immigrant advocates should accept that some people will abandon their cases. Supporters of the administration should accept that an absence does not always reveal intent. The EOIR can move the debate away from this moral war by publishing the mechanisms rather than just the results.

A good policy isn’t afraid of grounds for reopening cases. It uses them to adjust rulings, schedules, and court capacity. A bad policy prefers the masses, because the masses applaud before asking questions.

The backlog is a thermometer, not a conscience

The decline remains good news—with caveats

Fewer pending cases potentially mean fewer years of uncertainty, faster decisions, and a system that begins to function again. This improvement is desirable. It becomes troubling when the narrative glosses over the 281,867 default orders that accompanied the first nine months of 2026.

The challenge isn’t choosing between the backlog and the guarantees. A democracy capable of managing millions of cases must be able to reduce both: the waiting that wears people down and the absence that condemns them. If it can accomplish only one of these, it has not restored justice. It has merely shifted the problem.

A thermometer reading drops. It doesn’t tell us whether the patient is getting better.

The Only Victory That Matters

Victory will not be 3.47 million rather than 3.92 million. Nor will it be 100,000 cases closed in a month. It will be a system where a person receives notice, understands their hearing, can be heard, receives a decision within a reasonable timeframe, and, if they fail to appear, is subject to a rule enforced with evidence.

Everything else is administration. Necessary, sometimes impressive, often political. But justice begins exactly where the dashboard stops being enough.

Behind the curve, a seat must remain visible

281,867 times the same question

Every default judgment has its own file, its own notification, its own history, and its own potential for appeal. We do not know the individual reasons for all these absences. That is precisely why no one should turn them into a convenient moral bloc.

281,867. Not 281,867 proven fraudsters. Not 281,867 proven victims. Two hundred eighty-one thousand eight hundred sixty-seven decisions that compel the state to demonstrate that speed has not replaced presence.

The number is immense. The presumption, however, must remain small.

The True Face of the Setback

We can applaud an administration that reduces a backlog that has become untenable. We must also examine the methods it uses to achieve this. Immigration courts are not an assembly line where the best day is the one when the most cases fall off the conveyor belt.

The backlog is shrinking. Very well. Now, let’s examine the bigger picture that this triumph overlooks: how many people actually had the chance to be present when their future was decided?

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist’s Transparency Box

Editorial Positioning

I am not a journalist, but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analyzing the geopolitical, economic, and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work consists of dissecting political strategies, understanding global economic trends, contextualizing the decisions of international actors, and offering analytical perspectives on the transformations that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim to possess the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which is limited to factual reporting. I strive for analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation, and a deep understanding of the complex issues that affect us all. My role is to make sense of the facts, situate them within their historical and strategic context, and offer a critical analysis of events.

Methodology and Sources

This text respects the fundamental distinction between verified facts and interpretive analyses. The methodological rule is consistent: factual information is published only if it is supported by a verifiable source, and the sources actually used in this article are listed under “Sources,” never here.

Categories of primary sources used by the publication, when applicable: official press releases from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organizations, and dispatches from recognized international news agencies.

Types of secondary sources: specialized publications, internationally recognized news media, analyses from established research institutions, and reports from sector-specific organizations.

When an article cites statistical, economic, or geopolitical data, it comes from data-producing institutions (intergovernmental organizations, central banks, national statistical institutes), and the specific institution is listed under “Sources.”

Nature of the Analysis

The analyses, interpretations, and perspectives presented in the analytical sections of this article constitute a critical and contextual synthesis based on available information, observed trends, and expert commentary cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, contextualize them within the framework of contemporary geopolitical and economic dynamics, and give them coherent meaning within the broader narrative of the transformations shaping our era. These analyses reflect expertise developed through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a situation documented as of its publication date, not a prediction: subsequent developments may alter these perspectives. No updates are promised in advance; when an article is corrected or supplemented, the change is dated within the text.

ANALYSIS: The backlog is decreasing, while the number of judgments rendered in absentia is skyrocketing