ImmigrationClockFacts first
Proposed rule — not in force · Federal Register

Civil Money Penalty for Actions in Contempt of an Immigration Judge's Proper Exercise of Authority

Recorded by ImmigrationClock from Federal Register, published Jul 30, 2026.

Severity
Meaningful movement
Classification
Proposed rule — not in force
Published
Jul 30, 2026
Effective
None stated
Source checked
Sep 15, 2026
Meaningful movementProposed rule — not in forceFederal Register

Civil Money Penalty for Actions in Contempt of an Immigration Judge's Proper Exercise of Authority

This is a proposal open for comment, not a rule in force. It may never be finalised, and it creates no obligation today.

This notice of proposed rulemaking ("NPRM") would implement a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA" or "the Act") that authorizes Immigration Judges, under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, to sanction by civil money penalty any action (or inaction) in contempt of the proper exercise of their authority by certain individuals. The rule would: define the scope of the contempt authority; provide procedures for contempt findings, penalty determinations, and penalty payment; establish an appellate process; and implement oversight of the use of contempt authority. The rule would also make conforming changes to the grounds for practitioner discipline.

What this means

  • This is a proposal open for comment, not a rule. It changes nothing today, and it may be altered or never finalised. (classification: proposed_rule)
  • The document states a requirement for the people it covers. The exact wording is quoted above — whether it applies to any particular person depends on facts this platform does not have. (impact.actionRequired)

Derived from this event’s own recorded fields — not written by a model, and not an interpretation of anyone’s case.

Who is affected

The document does not name specific countries or visa categories in its scope language. Read the original to confirm whether it applies to a particular case.

What the document says may be required

The document states a requirement for those it covers. The exact obligation, and whether it applies to a particular person, depends on the document's own terms — the relevant passage is quoted below.

Any oral statements that were not recorded must be summarized in writing by the Immigration Judge for inclusion in the contempt Record of Proceeding.

Assembled from the source document, not from anyone's individual circumstances. Whether a change applies to a specific person depends on facts this platform does not have. This is data context, not legal advice.

  • This is a PROPOSED rule. It is not in force, may change before finalisation, and may never be finalised.
Published Jul 30, 2026Source checked Sep 15, 2026Read the originalMethodologyPermalink

Context

Source-backed explainers of the distinctions this kind of document turns on.

Follow this

Choose the countries, visas, agencies and topics this change touches, and ImmigrationClock will organise future changes around them — in your browser, never on our servers.

Follow what matters →

Share this record

https://immigrationclock.com/what-changed/civil-money-penalty-for-actions-in-contempt-of-an-immigration-judges-q6b1y8

Methodology & sources
This record was built from the linked government document by explicit, published rules per source — never by a language model, and never by how much attention an item might attract. Where the document states who is affected, it is quoted; where ImmigrationClock inferred something, it is labelled as an inference. The source was last checked on Sep 15, 2026. Nothing here is legal advice about anyone’s case. Read the full methodology →