Answer · confidence: partial
Did anyone sue over the appeals board getting smaller, and what did judges decide?
Research question: Have any lawsuits challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals reduction, and what did the courts decide?
Yes. Nonprofit groups that represent noncitizens sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, alleging the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause 124. On March 8, 2026, Judge Randolph D. Moss granted partial summary judgment and set aside several parts of the rule because the government did not follow required notice-and-comment procedures 514. The records show he vacated the provision for automatic summary dismissal of appeals not acted on within 10 days, so existing screening rules remain in place, and EOIR later confirmed the appeal deadline reverts to 30 days 6915. As of October 6, 2026, the most recent fact in the records, the court had paused three of the nine changes, and the case remains stayed while the government completes rulemaking, so the records do not show a final merits decision on the remaining provisions 7816.
Checked 2026-10-21. Only documented and supported facts are used.
Dig deeper on this questionSources
[1] supported
Nonprofit organizations that represent noncitizens in removal proceedings sued to block the Board of Immigration Appeals interim final rule from taking effect.
"A group of nonprofit organizations that represent noncitizens in removal proceedings sued to block the IFR from taking effect."Challenging the Trump Administration’s Regulation Gutting Appellate Review at the Board of Immigration Appeals - American Immigration Council
[2] supported
The lawsuit, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
"Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, et al., v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00696 (D.D.C.)"Challenging the Trump Administration’s Regulation Gutting Appellate Review at the Board of Immigration Appeals - American Immigration Council
[3] supported
Plaintiffs sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of D.C. (Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR) seeking a stay of the February 2026 BIA interim final rule.
"plaintiffs brought this action seeking a stay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705 in the District of D.C."BIA Appeal Deadline: What's in Effect After the 2026 Rule
[4] supported
The plaintiffs alleged the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
"They allege the IFR violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."Challenging the Trump Administration’s Regulation Gutting Appellate Review at the Board of Immigration Appeals - American Immigration Council
[5] supported
District Judge Randolph D. Moss granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment and set aside several parts of the rule because the government failed to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements.
"District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss entered an order granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment. The order set aside several portions of the IFR (set forth below) for failure to comply with the requirements of notice-and-comment rulemaking."BIA Appeal Deadline: What's in Effect After the 2026 Rule
[6] supported
A federal district court vacated parts of the interim final rule before it took effect, blocking the 10-day appeal deadline, the summary dismissal provision, and the waiver requirement for issues not raised in the notice of appeal.
"A federal court vacated parts of the IFR before it took effect, keeping the agency from implementing the 10-day appeal deadline, the summary dismissal provision, and the requirement that all the issues be addressed in the notice of appeal or deemed waived."Challenging the Trump Administration’s Regulation Gutting Appellate Review at the Board of Immigration Appeals - American Immigration Council
[7] supported
As of October 6, 2026, the federal court has paused three of the nine changes made by the Department of Justice's February 2026 rule.
"As of October 6, 2026, the federal court has paused three of the nine changes made by the Department of Justice’s February 2026 IFR."BIA Appeal Deadline: What's in Effect After the 2026 Rule
[8] supported
As of April 10, 2026, district court proceedings were stayed pending the notice-and-comment period and further agency action, but the court's earlier ruling setting aside portions of the rule remains in effect.
"This does not impact the court’s prior rulings, including the district court’s decision setting aside portions of the interim final rule."Challenging the Trump Administration’s Regulation Gutting Appellate Review at the Board of Immigration Appeals - American Immigration Council
[9] supported
Following the court order, EOIR issued a policy memorandum confirming that the appeal deadline reverts to 30 days rather than the 10 days the rule proposed.
"EOIR issued a Policy Memorandum (PM 26-02) clarifying that the current appeal deadline is 30 days, as a result of the March 8, 2026 court order."BIA Appeal Deadline: What's in Effect After the 2026 Rule
[10] supported
A court order found several provisions of the BIA's Interim Final Rule legally invalid and partially granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, so those provisions are not currently in effect.
"Fortunately, several provisions of the IFR are not currently in effect due to a court order finding them legally invalid and partially granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment."New BIA Procedural Rules: What's in Effect and What's Not
[11] supported
Other provisions of the BIA Interim Final Rule remain in effect despite the court ruling.
"But other provisions of the IFR are currently in effect."New BIA Procedural Rules: What's in Effect and What's Not
[12] supported
A lawsuit, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, challenged the Interim Final Rule, and a court found several of its provisions legally invalid and partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
"Fortunately, several provisions of the IFR are not currently in effect due to a court order finding them legally invalid and partially granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment."PDF New BIA Procedural Rules: - ilrc.org
[13] supported
The article reports that no court had ruled on the challenge yet; the outcome was unknown, and a preliminary injunction might or might not be issued before the March 9 effective date.
"The outcome of the litigation is not yet known. A preliminary injunction may or may not be issued before the March 9 effective date."Supreme Court Ruling and BIA Rule Change - A Step Backward for ...
[14] supported
Judge Randolf D. Moss of the D.C. District Court based his ruling primarily on the agency's failure to follow the notice and comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules making substantive changes.
"Judge Randolf D. Moss of the D.C. District Court primarily based his decision on the agency’s failure to follow notice and comment procedures required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for rules that will make substantive, rather than purely procedural, changes."PDF New BIA Procedural Rules: - ilrc.org
[15] supported
Judge Moss vacated the IFR provision that would have automatically summarily dismissed BIA appeals not acted on within 10 days, so the existing screening regulations at 8 CFR § 1003.1(e) remain in place.
"This sweeping change was vacated by Judge Moss, so the regulations at 8 CFR § 1003.1(e) regarding BIA screening procedures remain unchanged for the time being."PDF New BIA Procedural Rules: - ilrc.org
[16] supported
The case remains before Judge Moss but is stayed while the government completes notice and comment procedures and publishes a final rule; other IFR provisions are in effect but have not been held legally valid.
"The other provisions of the IFR are currently in effect, but have not been held to be legally valid. The case is currently still before Judge Moss, but is stayed while the government complies with notice and comment procedures and publishes a final rule."PDF New BIA Procedural Rules: - ilrc.org