The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has moved to rehear a controversial immigration case en banc, a decision that has sparked a fierce internal debate over whether the court is effectively ignoring Supreme Court mandates to manage its crushing workload.
In an order released February 20, 2026, the court vacated a previous three-judge panel decision in Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi. That original panel had attempted to dismantle what critics call a “clandestine” practice of granting automatic, long-term pauses on deportations for nearly anyone who asks.
The Case of the “Threadbare” Motion
The legal battle involves Maricruz Marisol Rojas-Espinoza and her family, citizens of Peru who entered the U.S. illegally in 2023. After their asylum claims were denied by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, they petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a stay of removal.
According to court records, the family’s request was “barebones,” consisting of only two pages of conclusory arguments. Under the Ninth Circuit’s current internal procedures, however, simply filing that request triggered an “administrative stay.” This kept the family in the country for ten months before a single judge even looked at the merits of their motion.
“Welcome to the Circuit of Wackadoo”
The decision to rehear the case—and thus set aside the panel’s attempt to fix this process—drew a blistering dissent from Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke. In a colorful and highly critical opinion, VanDyke compared the Ninth Circuit to a fictional “Circuit of Wackadoo” where judges are so overwhelmed by “deplorable” laws and high caseloads that they simply stop following the rules.
VanDyke argued that the Ninth Circuit is openly defying the Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in Nken v. Holder. In that case, the high court held that stays of removal are an “extraordinary remedy,” not a right, and must be based on an individual judicial review of the case’s merits.
“When you reflexively give a kid a cookie every time he asks for one, you can expect to hand out a lot of cookies,” VanDyke wrote, suggesting the court’s own lenient policies are what cause its massive backlog.
A Systemic Conflict
The heart of the dispute is the Ninth Circuit’s General Order 6.4(c). Since 2019, this order has allowed court staff to grant temporary stays automatically. These “temporary” pauses often last years because the court frequently waits until the very end of the appeals process to rule on the stay motion.
Statistically, the Ninth Circuit handles more than half of all immigration appeals in the country. Data suggests the court eventually denies over 90% of these cases, meaning thousands of people who have no legal right to remain in the U.S. are granted years of extra time simply by filing a motion.
The full court will now reconsider whether its “automatic-grant and deferred-review” process can stand. While the majority of the court appears focused on the logistical impossibility of reviewing thousands of motions individually, the dissent warns that “capacity constraints” are no excuse for ignoring the law.
Add the Tampa Free Press as a preferred source on Google
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
