Original Date Announced

Popular Information reports that multiple practitioners representing Somali migrants in immigration court have had all their cases reassigned to Sherron Ashworth, an immigration judge in Louisiana. In some cases, the reassignment means that proceedings will become remote, with the judge presiding over videoconference. According to Popular Information, Ashworth is a former ICE prosecutor with a “track record of quickly rejecting most asylum claims.” Between 2020 and 2025, he has rejected 85.3% of asylum claims.

Popular Information explains that the move follows a series of invectives by President Trump against Somalia and Somalis as well as the termination of Somalia’s designation for temporary protected status, which may result in an increased number of Somali nationals in immigration court in the coming months.

Trump 2.0 [ID #2228]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.03.24 Complaint - Hines Immigration Law v. EOIR

Legal service providers challenged the administration's policy of fast-tracking Somali immigrants for removal hearings. The complaint identifies several changes to the regular process for hearing non-detained immigration cases for Somalis, including: setting master-calendar hearings for non-detained Somali cases when such hearings were previously vacated; setting and advancing individual merits hearings for non-detained Somalis on short notice; and setting all or nearly all hearings for non-detained Somalis "before a subset of [immigration judges] who otherwise sit outside the relevant jurisdiction and in many cases have higher-than-average removal rates."

The complaint states that plaintiffs' work as legal services providers is thus "monumentally more difficult and, in many cases, nearly impossible." Plaintiffs allege that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees, as well as free speech and association rights under the First Amendment. Hines Immigration Law v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, No. 1:26-cv-01018 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.04.10 Memorandum Opinion - Hines Immigration Law v. EOIR

District Judge Nichols denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to stay the Trump administration's policy of fast-tracking Somali immigrants for removal hearings, holding that plaintiffs likely lacked standing. The court found that the plaintiffs could likely establish injury in fact and causation based on unrebutted evidence of a coordinated acceleration of Somali cases. However, it concluded that plaintiffs' injuries were not redressable because the weaker form of relief, staying the policy alone, would not undo the already-scheduled hearings, and the stronger form of relief, reverting all hearing schedules to their pre-policy dates, was likely barred by two provisions of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(f)(1) and 1252(b)(9). The court further held that the alleged policy likely did not constitute reviewable final agency action under the APA because any legal consequences flow from downstream scheduling decisions by individual immigration judges exercising their own docket-management authority, not from the unwritten policy itself.

Hines Immigration Law v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, No. 1:26-cv-01018 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**