Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026
HB7836, titled the “Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2026,” would create a new Article I court system called the United States Immigration Courts and move immigration adjudication out of the executive branch. The bill establishes a trial division and an appellate division, with immigration appeals judges and immigration trial judges appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, generally serving 15-year terms. It also sets qualifications, compensation, ethics rules, retirement and recall provisions, and authorizes the court system to adopt rules of practice, manage staff, and issue precedent decisions.
The bill would transfer the functions of the Executive Office for Immigration Review to the new court system, while preserving certain functions outside the transfer, such as the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. It provides for continuity of pending cases, preserves existing precedent and rules unless changed, and creates transition rules for current immigration judges, who would become interim immigration trial judges during a four-year transition period. The bill also requires annual reporting to Congress, periodic review by the Judicial Conference, and public availability of many court records and decisions, subject to confidentiality protections for sensitive matters such as national security, asylum, and Violence Against Women Act claims.
The bill would substantially revise the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding a new Title VI and making extensive conforming amendments throughout the statute to replace references to the Attorney General, Board of Immigration Appeals, and immigration judges with the new United States Immigration Courts and their divisions. It would shift immigration adjudication from the Department of Justice’s executive structure to an independent Article I court, alter procedures for removal, asylum, bond, detention, and judicial review, and change venue and appellate review rules. It would also affect staffing, budgeting, fee collection, records disclosure, and ethics reporting requirements for the new court system and related personnel.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct support or opposition can be measured from transcripts or roll calls. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a rule-of-law and independence reform for immigration adjudication, suggesting a pro-court, pro-due-process orientation. The absence of recorded votes or hearing testimony means the overall sentiment in the available record is neutral and largely procedural at this stage.
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s structural shift of immigration adjudication away from the executive branch and into a new Article I court system, which would change institutional control over immigration decisions. Another likely issue is the scope of judicial independence versus administrative flexibility, including presidential appointment and removal authority, the role of the appellate division in rulemaking and judge selection, and the use of temporary judges and facilities during transition or resource shortages. The bill’s provisions on public access to records, video teleconferencing, fees, and the handling of asylum and confidentiality-sensitive cases may also draw debate from advocates, practitioners, and agencies with differing views on access, efficiency, and due process.