Congress gave immigration judges a contempt power in 1996. It sat unused for thirty years because nobody wrote the regulations. On Wednesday DOJ finally wrote them — and exempted its own side of the courtroom.

Your clients’ first question about immigration court has always been some version of “what can the judge do to me?” As of Wednesday, there is a new answer on the table: fine you. Directly. In dollars.

The authority isn’t new — Congress codified it in 1996, in IIRIRA, as INA 240(b)(1): immigration judges may sanction “by civil money penalty any action (or inaction) in contempt” of their authority. But the statute requires the Attorney General to issue regulations first, and for thirty years no Attorney General did. Alberto Gonzales ordered a rule drafted in 2006. It never appeared. On July 30, 2026, it finally did — as a proposed rule, open for comment until September 28.

Here is who the proposed contempt power reaches: the attorneys and representatives who have entered an appearance, the respondents themselves — the rule says “aliens who are the subject of the proceedings” — and witnesses, including anyone appearing by phone or video. And here is who it cannot touch, by design.

Read that twice. The private attorney can be fined. The respondent can be fined. The respondent’s cousin testifying by video can be fined. The DHS trial attorney sitting at the other table — the other half of every single one of these proceedings — cannot.

DOJ’s stated reason is structural: it is “wary of creating a regulatory structure where one Executive agency may impose money sanctions on individuals engaging in official representation of another Executive agency,” and says misconduct by federal employees is for their employing agency to discipline. That is a real principle with real precedent. It is also, functionally, a courtroom where contempt has a price for exactly one side.

The proposed penalty schedule: first contempt order, second, and any subsequent — proposed 8 CFR 1003.126(c)(1).

Five kinds of conduct qualify, and only five — the rule calls its list exclusive: repeated failure to appear on time (attorneys only), repeated failure to comply with filing orders, disorderly or abusive behavior or language, knowingly or recklessly false statements or evidence, and willfully misleading or threatening any person about a case. Both action and inaction count.

For the people you represent, the second item on that list is the one that matters. “Repeated failure to comply with Immigration Judge orders to timely file pleadings, applications, pre-hearing statements, evidentiary submissions, or any other filings, without good cause” is not attorney-only conduct. A respondent who cannot get documents together on the court’s schedule — and whose reasons don’t clear the good-cause bar — is inside the fine’s reach, one thousand to thirty-five hundred dollars at a time.

The process has real guardrails, and they’re worth knowing before anyone panics: the judge issues a notice of intent first, the person gets thirty days to respond in writing, the penalty is set by the Chief Immigration Judge’s review rather than on the spot, the amount can’t exceed what the notice proposed, and there’s an appeal path. This is a civil-penalty procedure, not a gavel and a cash register.

But procedure is exactly what the comment period is for. The two questions worth putting to DOJ in writing before September 28: whether a contempt regime that exempts one side of every adversarial proceeding can be squared with the even administration of justice — and whether fining respondents for filing failures, in a system where most respondents have no lawyer at all, punishes the people least equipped to comply.

Kept honest. This is an NPRM — a proposal. Every number and provision above can change before a final rule, and proposed rules sometimes never become final at all. The thirty-year gap is the record’s framing, not my flourish: the statute is from 1996 (Pub. L. 104-208 §304), the preamble itself recounts the 2006 Gonzales directive that produced no rule, and Wednesday’s document is the first proposed implementation. The “most respondents have no lawyer” point is mine, not the rule’s — DOJ’s preamble does not discuss representation rates, and I’m flagging it as the obvious pressure point rather than quoting anyone. And the exemption has a defensible logic — agencies disciplining their own employees is standard executive-branch practice (the preamble cites 5 CFR 2635.106(b)) — so the honest argument is about its effect in an adversarial courtroom, not about whether DOJ invented the principle.

Source (primary, fetched and read today): DOJ/EOIR notice of proposed rulemaking, “Civil Money Penalty for Actions in Contempt of an Immigration Judge’s Proper Exercise of Authority,” 91 FR 47979, published July 30, 2026, docket EOIR-26-AB02; full text retrieved via the Federal Register’s own text endpoint. All quoted language — the covered-individuals list (proposed 8 CFR 1003.123), the federal-employee exemption at 1003.123(b), the five conduct categories and exclusivity provision (1003.124), the penalty schedule (1003.126(c)(1)), the action-and-inaction provision, the CMP Notice/30-day-response/Chief Immigration Judge review procedure (1003.127), and the preamble’s one-agency-sanctioning-another rationale — is verbatim from that document. Statutory history: INA 240(b)(1), codified by IIRIRA, Pub. L. 104-208 §304 (1996); the 2006 Attorney General directive is recounted, with citation, in the preamble itself. Comment deadline September 28, 2026, per the Federal Register API record for document 2026-15458.

In 1996, Congress gave immigration judges the power to fine people for contempt. It sat unused for thirty years — because the statute requires regulations, and no Attorney General ever wrote them. Gonzales ordered a draft in 2006. Nothing appeared.

On Wednesday, it finally did. And the most important part is who's exempt.

The proposed rule (91 FR 47979, published July 30) lets immigration judges impose civil money penalties on:

— attorneys and representatives who've entered an appearance
— the respondents themselves — "aliens who are the subject of the proceedings"
— witnesses, explicitly including those appearing by phone or video

The penalty schedule: $1,000–1,500 for a first contempt order. $1,500–2,500 for a second. $2,500–3,500 after that.

And who cannot be fined, from the proposed regulatory text itself:

"...which does not include attorneys or witnesses who are employees or contractors of the federal government acting in their official capacity."

The private attorney can be fined. The respondent can be fined. The respondent's cousin testifying over video can be fined. The DHS trial attorney — the other half of every one of these adversarial proceedings — cannot.

DOJ's stated reason is structural: one executive agency shouldn't impose money sanctions on another's official representatives; agencies discipline their own. That's a real principle with real precedent. It is also, functionally, a courtroom where contempt has a price for exactly one side.

What conduct qualifies? Five categories, and the rule calls the list exclusive: repeated failure to appear on time (attorneys only), repeated failure to comply with filing orders, disorderly or abusive conduct, knowingly or recklessly false statements or evidence, and willfully misleading or threatening any person about a case. Action AND inaction count.

The second category is the one I'd watch. "Repeated failure to comply with Immigration Judge orders to timely file pleadings, applications, pre-hearing statements, evidentiary submissions, or any other filings, without good cause" is not attorney-only conduct. A respondent who can't get documents together on the court's schedule is inside the fine's reach.

The guardrails are real and worth stating: notice of intent first, thirty days to respond in writing, penalty set through the Chief Immigration Judge's review rather than on the spot, capped at what the notice proposed, appeal path included. This is a civil-penalty procedure, not a gavel and a cash register.

But procedure is what comment periods are for. Comments close September 28, 2026 — docket EOIR-26-AB02. The two questions worth putting to DOJ in writing:

1. Can a contempt regime that exempts one side of every adversarial proceeding be squared with the even administration of justice?

2. Does fining respondents for filing failures — in a system where many respondents have no lawyer at all — punish the people least equipped to comply? (That second framing is mine, not the rule's.)

This is a proposal, not law. Nothing can be fined today, and the ranges can change. But thirty years of silence just ended with a very specific asymmetry written into the draft — and sixty days on the clock to say so on the record.

Source: 91 FR 47979, July 30, 2026, docket EOIR-26-AB02. Every quote above is verbatim from the document.

FIRST SOURCE · one verified original-source finding, composed for one reader · this edition: immigration law — written for the firms whose clients will hear "judges can fine immigrants now" and deserve the accurate version first