PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 2019
Immigration Court Improvement Act of 2019
This bill revises the definition of "immigration judge" by establishing that an immigration judge is judicial by nature, and actions taken while serving in a judicial capacity shall be reviewed under the applicable Code of Judicial Conduct, not any code of attorney behavior. It also establishes that an immigration judge may not be disciplined for good faith legal actions made while hearing and deciding cases. Completion goal systems or efficiency standards imposed on immigration judges may not be used to limit such judges' independent authority or as a reflection of individual judicial performance.
The Department of Justice shall (1) establish a transparent judicial complaint process consistent with various professional guidelines, and (2) promulgate regulations governing an immigration judge's contempt authority.
People & committees
Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.663 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.663 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.663 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.663 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.