# Federal Court Lets Two Fort Snelling Hearing-Access Claims Proceed but Denies an Injunction

> On September 3, 2026, a federal judge let two public-access claims about Fort Snelling immigration hearings proceed but refused a preliminary injunction.

- Source: https://carlosmaury.law/news/fort-snelling-immigration-court-public-access-ruling
- Author: Carlos Maury Law
- Published: 2026-09-03
- Topics: Fort Snelling immigration court, immigration court public access, 8 CFR 1003.27, observing immigration court hearings, Advocates for Human Rights v. Blanche

On **September 3, 2026**, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in a lawsuit brought by volunteer court observers over public access to immigration hearings, including hearings of the **[Fort Snelling Immigration Court](/fort-snelling-immigration-court)** in Minnesota. In *The Advocates for Human Rights et al. v. Todd Blanche et al.* (D.D.C. No. 26-865), U.S. District Judge **Rudolph Contreras** let **two claims** go forward, dismissed the rest, and **denied** the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and stay.

This is general information about a court decision, not legal advice. The source is the court's **[memorandum opinion](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026cv0865-43)** dated September 3, 2026 (also on [CourtListener](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10966153/advocates-for-human-rights-v-bondi/)).

## Who sued, and over what

The plaintiffs are The Advocates for Human Rights, which runs a Court Observation Project at Fort Snelling, and several individual observers. The defendants are the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice and officials of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The central rule is **[8 CFR 1003.27](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/section-1003.27)**, which says that "[a]ll hearings, other than exclusion hearings, shall be open to the public," subject to limited exceptions.

## What the plaintiffs say happened at Fort Snelling

The following are **the plaintiffs' allegations and declarations**, not findings by the court:

- The organization's observers "attended and documented just under 30,000 hearings between May 2019 and May 22, 2026."
- Out-of-state immigration judges have presided remotely over **more than 834 hearings** in Fort Snelling since February 2026. The plaintiffs say these were predominantly cases of respondents of Somali descent, a practice they call the "Somali Rocket Docket."
- In those hearings, according to the declarations, the judge appears from another state and the respondent by Webex from Minnesota, generally with **no in-person option** at Fort Snelling.
- The observers say they were **denied remote access in 86.7%** of 685 cases with no in-person option at Fort Snelling.

## What the court decided

**Two claims survive.** The court found the plaintiffs plausibly allege that the government denies observers access by (1) holding hearings **entirely online with no way for the public to access them**, or (2) offering access **only in a different state without adequate notice** of where. These practices, "if proven, would violate 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27," the opinion says. That is not a finding that the practices occurred.

**The other claims were dismissed.** The court called some challenged measures lawful, "such as requiring observers to attend hearings in person."

**No preliminary injunction.** The court said that was "in large part" because the government had recently taken steps to address the concerns. EOIR's June 2026 fact sheet, *Observing Immigration Court Hearings*, states that internet-based hearings where no physical courtroom is available are "open to the public" and that visitors "may access the Webex links" through the EOIR website. Because the government "has since disavowed the practice," the court found no clear showing of imminent harm. On out-of-state hearings, the record was unclear.

The court also took **judicial notice** of a July 11, 2026 EOIR publication by Director Daren Margolin, which it said in relevant part mirrors the June 2026 fact sheet. The case continues on the two remaining claims.

## What this means if you have a case at Fort Snelling

Speaking as a firm led by a former U.S. Immigration Judge: **how the hearing is run does not change your duty to appear.**

- **Your judge may be remote.** A judge in another state may hear your case by Webex. You must still appear as your hearing notice instructs, on time.
- **Check your hearing information often** on EOIR's **[Automated Case Information](https://acis.eoir.justice.gov)** portal. Dates and judges can change.
- **Keep your address current.** If you move, file **Form EOIR-33** within five days.
- **Do not miss a hearing.** If you fail to appear, the judge can order you removed **in absentia**. See [motions to reopen and reconsider](/news/motions-to-reopen-reconsider-immigration-explained).
- **Family and supporters.** Under EOIR's [fact sheet](https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1449716/dl?inline) (the posted version is now dated September 2026), if the judge, respondent or counsel is in a physical courtroom, visitors must observe there in person. For internet-only hearings, visitors may join by Webex under their full legal name, up to 20 at a time. Recording is prohibited.

For the stages of a case, see [removal proceedings in immigration court, explained](/news/removal-proceedings-immigration-court-explained).

## Frequently asked questions

### Did the court order Fort Snelling hearings opened to observers?

No. It denied the preliminary injunction. It let two claims under 8 CFR 1003.27 proceed and dismissed the others.

### Are the 834 hearings and the 86.7% figure court findings?

No. They come from the plaintiffs' declarations; the court has not decided the facts.

### Can my family watch my hearing if it is held by Webex?

If no physical courtroom is used, EOIR's fact sheet says the hearing is open by Webex, up to 20 virtual visitors, unless lawfully closed. Otherwise visitors attend in person.

### Does a remote judge change what I must do?

No. You must attend as your notice says. Missing a hearing can lead to an in absentia removal order.

This article is general legal information about a court decision, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney–client relationship. The case is ongoing; read the [memorandum opinion](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026cv0865-43) and [8 CFR 1003.27](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/section-1003.27), and consult a qualified attorney about your specific situation.

---
*General legal information from Carlos Maury Law — not legal advice. https://carlosmaury.law/news/fort-snelling-immigration-court-public-access-ruling*