Immigration-court legal deserts (2026): Louisiana has 26 judges but only 7 free legal-aid nonprofits — 1.8 per court, while Illinois has 75

Free representation is thinnest where the courts are

The finding: the immigration-court system runs on 74 courts and 773 judges. The Department of Justice separately recognizes 1,452 nonprofit organizations authorized to give free or low-cost immigration representation, 1,310 of them in the 31 states and territories that host a court. Divide one by the other, state by state, and some of the states carrying the largest court dockets have the fewest recognized nonprofits to meet them. The five thinnest:

Across the 31 court-hosting jurisdictions there are 17.7 recognized nonprofits for every immigration court. The best-served state, Illinois, has 75 — a 42× spread from the least-served state that has any to the most.

Louisiana is the one to sit with. It runs 4 immigration courts and 26 judges — a bench larger than several bigger states carry — yet only 7 recognized nonprofits are based there, all of them stretched across a state that has become one of the country’s busiest immigration-detention corridors. Texas is the scale version of the same story: the largest court system in the nation, 139 judges across 12 courts, leans on 109 recognized nonprofits — 9.1 per court against a national 17.7, and fewer than one organization for every judge.

Every state with a court, thinnest first

Department of Justice (EOIR) recognized nonprofit organizations per immigration court, for the states and territories that host at least one court. Courts and judges from the EOIR directory; organizations from EOIR's official roster. Marked rows are below the national average of 17.7 organizations per court.

Sources: EOIR court directory and the EOIR recognized-organizations roster. "Recognized organization" is a specific EOIR program (nonprofits authorized to employ accredited non-attorney representatives); it does not include private attorneys, law-school clinics, or bar pro-bono panels, so a low count means few of this free/low-cost channel, not an absence of all legal help.

What the data shows

• The largest benches are not the best served. Louisiana (1.8 per court), Arizona (4.8), Hawaii (5.0), Georgia (7.0) and Tennessee (8.0) head the fewest-per-court list, and Texas — the largest court system in the country — sits eighth of 31 at 9.1. All six are below the 17.7 average, so recognized-nonprofit capacity has not been built in proportion to the courts.
• Two courts have no recognized nonprofit at all. Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands each host a court but have zero recognized organizations on the roster. People there rely entirely on organizations elsewhere or on private counsel.
• The gap is wide. 1.8 recognized nonprofits per court in Louisiana, 75 in Illinois: the same free/low-cost channel is roughly 42× more available per court in the best-served state than the worst.
• This is not the whole picture of legal help. “Recognized organization” is a narrow DOJ program. A state can have a low count here and still have private immigration attorneys, law-school clinics, and bar pro-bono panels. The count tracks one specific free channel, not all representation.

Why this matters

Whether someone facing removal has a lawyer is one of the strongest predictors of how their case ends — represented people are far more likely to win relief and to appear for their hearings. Recognized nonprofits are a core part of how low-income immigrants get that representation for free or at low cost, because their accredited representatives can appear before the court without the fees a private attorney charges.

Where those nonprofits are scarce relative to the courts, the practical result is longer waits, unrepresented respondents, and people traveling out of state — or going without. The rows at the top of this table are the places where that squeeze is tightest.

Two honest limits before you read too much into a single row. A recognized-org count is not a capacity measure — one large organization with several accredited representatives may serve more people than three small ones. And representation is not bound by state line: an organization in one state can represent someone before a court in another, and EOIR holds many hearings by Webex, so a low local count is a signal of local access, not a verdict on whether help is reachable at all.

If you need to find help, MigrantUSA lists the recognized organizations in each state and every immigration court by state, with addresses and hearing-access details.

Method and caveat

Court and judge counts are taken from the Department of Justice EOIR court directory: each court is counted once, and judges are counted from the named judge rows in each court’s hearing-access table. Recognized-organization counts come from EOIR’s official Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives roster, using EOIR’s own by-state index. The ratio is the recognized nonprofits located in a state divided by the immigration courts in that state.

As of. Organization counts come from the EOIR roster published April 20, 2026. Court and judge counts come from the EOIR court directory captured May 26, 2026, with every judge roster re-synced from EOIR’s hearing-access page on August 11, 2026. The join was last rebuilt September 1, 2026. Two totals are published and they are not interchangeable: 1,452 recognized organizations nationwide, of which 1,310 sit in the 31 jurisdictions that host a court — the per-court ratio uses the second, because the 19 states with no immigration court have no denominator to contribute.

Three limits are stated plainly. “Recognized organization” is a narrow program — nonprofits authorized to employ accredited non-attorney representatives — and excludes private attorneys, clinics, and bar pro-bono panels, so a low count means few of this specific channel, not an absence of all legal help. The count is of organizations, not of representatives or of capacity — one org may hold several accredited representatives. And the District of Columbia is excluded because it has no immigration court, so it cannot appear in a per-court comparison — not for want of recognized organizations, of which it has 14. Rosters change as organizations are recognized, renewed, or lapse; confirm at justice.gov before relying on any single figure.

This is general information, not legal advice. To find representation for a specific case, use the recognized-organization and court directories linked above, or the EOIR roster directly.

Download the data: eoir_legal_deserts.json — all 31 court states and territories, with courts, judges, recognized nonprofits, and nonprofits per court.

Suggested citation: MigrantUSA, “Immigration-court legal deserts by state, 2026,” https://migrantusa.com/datasets/immigration-court-legal-deserts/ (accessed [date]).

Embed this widget on your site — free

Newsrooms, legal-aid and immigrant-services organizations, law-school clinics, and public-library resource desks: drop in the panel below. It shows the national ratio and the states with the fewest recognized nonprofits per court, and updates when we refresh the underlying rosters.

<iframe src="https://migrantusa.com/embed/legal-deserts/" width="100%" height="560"
        style="border:1px solid #e2e8e4;border-radius:8px;max-width:640px"
        title="Immigration-court legal deserts by state" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font-size:12px">Source: <a href="https://migrantusa.com/datasets/immigration-court-legal-deserts/">MigrantUSA — immigration-court legal deserts by state</a></p>