All four members of Hawaiʻi’s congressional delegation are challenging the Department of Justice’s dramatic shift away from virtual hearings in the state’s immigration court recently uncovered by Civil Beat. 

Civil Beat’s article found that new Trump-appointed judges are requiring immigrants and their attorneys to show up to court in person four times as often as their predecessors.

A letter sent Thursday to the Department of Justice — signed by Sens. Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono and Reps. Ed Case and Jill Tokuda — cites the reporting in asking the DOJ why the longstanding use of virtual hearings was “abruptly reversed” and how the department will ensure that people living on neighbor islands — or out of state — are not deported simply because they cannot afford to travel to their hearings on Oʻahu.

Lawmakers propose setting up hearings – either via video or in person – on Maui, Kauaʻi and Hawaiʻi island at least once a month or returning to the previous policy that allowed immigrants and their attorneys to join remotely if they would otherwise have had to fly to be in court.

“The effect on neighbor island families is stark,” the letter reads. “A single hearing can now entail inter-island airfare, an overnight hotel room on Oʻahu, lost work hours and unexpected childcare costs – expenses that low-income residents cannot afford.” 

Hawaiʻi’s only immigration court is in Honolulu and traveling there means immigrants must shoulder the cost of travel, including at times for their attorneys.

Missing a hearing comes with substantial consequences. An in-absentia decision can translate into an almost automatic order for removal. 

“Hawaiʻi practitioners report that an increasing share of their clients – people who have lived in  for​​ years, worked, paid taxes and raised families – are forced to waive viable claims rather than facing these costs,” the lawmakers wrote. 

They also noted that “​Hawaiʻi’s unique geography does not eliminate the due process rights of our nation’s immigrants.” 

Support from Hawaiʻi’s lawmakers in Washington, D.C. is critical for such a far away and geographically unique state, said Bettina Mok, executive director of The Legal Clinic, a Honolulu-based nonprofit that serves immigrants. She said having a population spread among islands poses a particular set of challenges for people who need to travel for immigration appointments, biometric checks and Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-ins.

“We’re all the way out here in the Pacific without much ability to influence federal policy without their support,” Mok said. “And we know they’re busy. So for them to prioritize this among all the other concerns they’re addressing, we’re very appreciative of that.”

Lawmakers Ask What Changed

Immigration courts have had a longstanding practice of allowing hearings to be conducted via video conferencing – a policy bolstered by the federal law and several memorandums from the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Previously, the office directed judges to approve requests for remote hearings where appropriate under a memorandum issued during the Biden administration in 2022. 

But the Civil Beat analysis of immigration data found that 87% of people on neighbor islands with immigration hearings in July and August were required to show up in person, compared to just under a third in the same period last year. The same is true for those who list out of state addresses, where people with in-person appearances jumped from 14% last July and August to 82% this year.

Mok thinks the emphasis on in-person hearings is part of a broader effort to make it more difficult for people to fulfill the obligations of their immigration case. On top of the costs, she said the logistics of flying from another island or out of state make it all the more likely that people will miss their hearings. Morning hearings start at 8:30 a.m. but the earliest flight from Maui, for example, is 6 a.m., making it tough for immigrants to get to court on time.

“It’s just inefficient, and it doesn’t make any sense either for the judges and court staff or the respondents,” she said. “It’s perplexing, and the only conclusion we can come to is that it’s by design to deter immigrants from gaining legal status.”

The Biden-era memorandum was rescinded in the early months of the second Trump administration. The justice department’s argument, as lawmakers point out in their letter, was that the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review does not have the authority to tell judges how to rule on motions for a remote hearing. 

If judicial independence prevents the DOJ from instructing judges to grant requests for remote hearings, the lawmakers wrote, that same logic “equally bars EOIR leadership from encouraging their denial.”

Now lawmakers want to know whether the immigration review office has done just that. 

In their letter sent on Thursday, lawmakers are asking the DOJ to share any direction sent to judges discouraging the use of video appearances in Hawaiʻi or nationwide. That includes any written guidance, training materials or informal direction regarding video or telephone appearances by respondents or their attorneys, as well as any performance metrics or expectations for judges that could impact their decision to deny a motion for a remote hearing. 

Advocates also want to know where the push toward requiring people to show up in person originated.

“If this is a directive or guidance from the executive branch to immigration courts, I think that really just sort of underscores how biased immigration courts have become under this administration,” Leilani Stacy, an immigrant rights staff attorney at the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, said. “If this is really a formal memo or policy, then it’s almost effectively saying, limit people’s access to justice, make it harder for people to get representation in court.”

Without that clarity, judges’ requirements are more unpredictable and it’s hard for immigrants and their clients to prepare, she said.

Lawmakers are seeking additional data on the use of remote hearings in Honolulu’s immigration court, including the number of motions granted or denied for a respondent, their attorney or any witnesses to appear remotely, broken out by whether the person lives on a neighbor island or out of state and whether they’re detained. 

The letter also requests the number of motions to transfer the jurisdiction of the case to a different court and the number in absentia removal orders that were entered between June and September 2026, and the same period last year. Lawmakers asked the DOJ to respond by Nov. 5.