This story first appeared in JRS INSIDER, a monthly newsletter including stories of impact across JRS global.

In the back of often small, windowless courtrooms, immigration court observers quietly take notes on the proceedings. They collect data on details such as whether migrants have lawyers, whether they are informed of their rights, and whether translation is available.

Part of our Migrant Accompaniment Network, the JRS/USA Court Observation Project (COP), began in the summer of 2025 in response to the Trump administration’s ramp-up of immigration enforcement activities. In this INSIDER, we hear from two COP volunteers, Adam and Rachel, who testify to the abuses, difficulties, and heartbreak they have witnessed.

Adam lives in Seattle, where, about a year ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) descended on the city.

“I bear witness to the confusion, frustration, and fear that many immigrants face,” Adam said. “The process can be complicated, overwhelming and terrifying, especially for those who do not speak English.”

He shared the story of one woman he observed a couple of weeks ago. She was from a Latin American country and arrived alone to represent herself and her four children. She was so anxious to explain her story to the judge that she could not focus on the oath to tell the truth or even answer a question about her name. Instead, she launched into an account of what forced her to flee her home and the dangers she and her children face, repeating the story over and over again. “In the end, [the judge] rescheduled the hearing,” Adam reported. “But it’s hard to say whether her next appearance will go any better.”

Though ICE no longer lines the hallways or crowds the exits to pick off people appearing for court proceedings, migrants in Seattle, like those around the country, are still vulnerable to immigration judges’ decisions that can entail harsh and often dangerous consequences. These include ordering third-country deportations, or “removals.” In this instance, a migrant might be sent to a country where they have never set foot and where they almost never have the social ties or basic support necessary for survival. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is pushing these third-country deportations to remove individuals without full hearings and without any meaningful process to determine whether they qualify for asylum or other protections.

DHS argues that the arrangements it has made to remove people to third countries justify denying claims for asylum or related humanitarian protections because those individuals can be removed to a “safe” third country. But many of these “safe” countries—which, keep in mind, include South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Honduras—are, in fact, known to be unsafe due to ongoing conflicts and/or have questionable records when it comes to upholding human rights. There have even been reports of onward removals from third countries to people’s countries of origin, where they fear persecution or torture.

These removals are just one of many concerns advocates are raising about the lack of due process in the current U.S. immigration system. Another is detention conditions, as accounts of abuse and neglect continue to emerge.

“The plight of those in ICE detention weighs heavily on my heart,” reflected Rachel, a volunteer on the other side of the country in Massachusetts. “I feel that, through court observation, I can be the eyes and ears that document the injustice that is happening… Hopefully, it will make a difference for some.”

On days when the news feels like a steady stream of setbacks for human rights, I find myself returning to the generosity of people like Adam and Rachel as a source of hope.

Rachel signed up with the COP after reading article after article detailing hundreds of people detained, families separated, individuals violently arrested and deplorable detention conditions. When someone from her local Catholic parish told her about JRS’ program, she knew she needed to get involved.

“Through the training provided, I learned about how the immigration court operates and the specific due process rights that respondents have,” Rachel said. “I never realized that immigration court falls under the control of the Department of Justice and that immigration hearing rules can change based on the political party of the executive branch.”

In her court, most cases are bond hearings for people detained by ICE. Currently, most detainees do not receive a bond hearing unless they file a habeas corpus petition and convince a federal court to order one. Bond hearings are intended to allow detainees to show they can be released while their cases are pending because they do not pose a flight risk or a danger to the community. But the bond hearings being ordered through habeas petitions, like so many immigration proceedings today, are often conducted by immigration judges who are not holding them in good faith. One immigration judge in Missouri, for example, determined that a mother of three who owns a home and runs a business in the United States was a flight risk.

“As observers, we do not intervene in these cases, even to help immigrants find support,” Adam explained. “However, we still play a valuable role. In the past, these hearings often happened without any public observation. Our presence helps remind judges, government lawyers and the immigrants that someone is watching and that open court is one of the pillars of our legal system. Now that the system is facing so much change and stress, it’s even more important to have a public eye on what goes on.”

If you feel moved or have been looking for a way to get involved, explore the Court Observation Project. As Pope Leo XIV wrote in his first encyclical, “A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change, and environmental disasters. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of fraternity.”