The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a stay of removal for a Peruvian family, a decision that underscores the court’s ongoing efforts to manage its substantial immigration caseload. This move reflects a broader judicial discourse on the balance between due process and the efficient enforcement of immigration laws.
In this particular case, the en banc panel denied the family’s motion to stay their removal while their appeal was under review. Judge Eric Tung, who joined the court in 2025, noted that the order validated part of a previous three-judge panel’s ruling, which had also rejected the motion to stay removal. However, Tung emphasized that the en banc panel’s decision did not address the broader issue of the court’s practice of granting stays in deportation cases, leaving room for further discussion on this procedural aspect. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/in-house-counsel/ninth-circuit-judges-tussle-over-pauses-for-deportation-orders?utm_source=openai))
The Ninth Circuit has been grappling with its approach to stays of removal. In October 2025, a three-judge panel criticized the court’s practice of automatically granting such requests, highlighting a case where a Peruvian couple secured an extended stay with a minimal filing. The panel called for an end to this practice, suggesting it allowed for unwarranted delays in the enforcement of removal orders. ([law360.com](https://www.law360.com/washington/articles/2403993/9th-circ-calls-out-legality-of-its-own-removal-stay-process?utm_source=openai))
Judge Lawrence VanDyke has been particularly vocal on this issue. In February 2026, he dissented from an en banc court’s review of a denial of a stay of deportation for a Peruvian family, referring to the court’s approach as a “Circuit of Wackadoo.” VanDyke criticized his colleagues for frequently granting stays in deportation cases, arguing that this practice undermines the streamlined removal proceedings established by law. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/immigration/judge-hits-wackadoo-ninth-circuit-on-deportation-case-review?utm_source=openai))
The Ninth Circuit’s immigration docket is indeed substantial. In the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, appeals of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and other executive branch agencies accounted for 29.2% of all new appeals in the Ninth Circuit. Notably, the BIA accounted for 94.4% of agency appeals and 27.6% of the court’s total new filings. ([cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/judicial-council/publications/AnnualReport2024.pdf?utm_source=openai))
Nationwide, the immigration court backlog has reached unprecedented levels. As of November 2023, the backlog surpassed 3 million pending cases, with the average caseload per immigration judge exceeding 4,500 cases. This surge has been attributed to increased arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as under-resourcing and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. ([gitnux.org](https://gitnux.org/immigration-judge-statistics/?utm_source=openai))
In response to these challenges, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have developed a Dedicated Docket to expedite decisions in immigration cases involving families who arrive between ports of entry at the Southwest Border. This initiative aims to provide trial date certainty and reduce the number of cases that must be rescheduled due to various circumstances. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/eoir/additional-dedicated-docket-statistics?utm_source=openai))
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decisions and internal debates highlight the complexities of managing an extensive immigration docket. As the court continues to navigate these challenges, its rulings will have significant implications for immigration law and policy, balancing the need for due process with the imperative of timely enforcement.