RAICES Bulletin: DHS Issues Threat Against Immigration Attorneys
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR On May 26, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to levy civil penalties against immigration attorneys based on unsubstantiated allegations of routine asylum fraud. This directive serves as part of a coordinated effort to fast-track deportations by intimidating defense bars and eroding pro bono networks, though these tactics are already facing heavy resistance in court.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: On May 26, 2026, DHS directed ICE to target immigration attorneys it accused of filing false claims. Under this directive, ICE will increase enforcement of 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(d) to levy civil penalties for alleged document fraud.
Rationale: Without offering factual evidence, DHS claims immigration attorneys routinely falsify asylum claims regarding persecution or torture, and plans to introduce internal administrative tools to curb this practice. The directive builds on an unsubstantiated March 2025 memorandum by President Trump that accused the immigration bar and pro bono programs of coaching clients to deceive federal authorities.
RAICES Impact: As a direct legal services provider, RAICES anticipates an increasingly hostile, hyper-adversarial immigration court that lacks independence from ICE and its attorneys. While RAICES attorneys should remain vigilant against bad-faith document fraud allegations, staff already adhere to the highest ethical standards and should not be deterred from providing zealous, legitimate advocacy.
Community Impact: The directive creates an immediate chilling effect for asylum seekers and explicitly aims to erode access to legal representation. Forcing asylum seekers to navigate a complex, punitive immigration system without counsel, drastically diminishing their chances. Asylum seekers are likely to fear that difficult to prove claims will be labeled fraudulent.
Related Legal Battles: ICE's fraud allegations are likely to fail in court. For example, on April 20, 2026, in Xiong et al. v. Sherman et al., a court rejected a Department of Justice (DOJ) motion to sanction an attorney whose litigation delayed a deportation flight, ruling that good-faith constitutional advocacy cannot face government retribution or punitive liabilities.
Broader Immigration Strategy: This directive is part of a strategy to fast-track deportations by using implied and explicit threats to sow fear among asylum seekers and their legal advocates. Robust ethical oversight already exists across all state bars and federal courts, which recently resulted in disciplinary action against DOJ's own attorneys. DHS seeks to avoid checks and balances, eliminate legal representation, and circumvent due process rights entirely, setting a dangerous precedent. Because of the Administration's recent policies, people pursuing protection—and their legal representatives—may conclude that the risk of harm associated with seeking refuge in the U.S. is greater than the dangers they are fleeing. Accordingly, this critical moment demands fortitude and resilience from legal advocates.
