Recent reports indicate that some U.S. Immigration courts have allowed ICE lawyers to remain anonymous, with judges permitting omission of their names from public records.
Lawyers representing ICE are now also being offered anonymity in the USA, with immigration judges refusing to press them for their names.

FactVerify
Source: factverify.com
Key Evidence
Boing Boing reports that courts have allowed ICE lawyers to omit their names from public records despite objections.
techdirt.comtechdirt.comICE Lawyers Are Trying To Remain Anonymous In Court Like The Cowards They Are
Techdirt highlights this anonymity as a means for ICE personnel to avoid public accountability.
washingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.comThe online activists trying to stop ICE from making arrests
No authoritative sources contradict these findings.
What the Evidence Shows
The claim that lawyers representing ICE are being offered anonymity in U.S. Immigration courts is supported by recent news coverage. According to a Boing Boing article dated July 21, 2025, certain courts have permitted ICE lawyers to withhold their names from public filings, a decision upheld by Judge Xu despite objections from non-government parties.techdirt.comtechdirt.comICE Lawyers Are Trying To Remain Anonymous In Court Like The Cowards They Are This practice appears to be part of a broader trend of ICE personnel seeking anonymity to avoid public accountability, as discussed in commentary from Techdirt.
washingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.comThe online activists trying to stop ICE from making arrests
However, the claim that immigration judges are refusing to press them for their names is somewhat overstated; the available sources emphasize judicial decisions allowing anonymity rather than judges actively refusing to ask for names. The Washington Post articleboingboing.netboingboing.netCourts allowing ICE lawyers to remain anonymous does not directly address lawyer anonymity but provides context on ICE-related legal proceedings. Overall, the core factual assertion about ICE lawyers being granted anonymity is accurate, though the framing about judges refusing to press for names may exaggerate the procedural dynamics.
This nuance leads to a 'Mostly True' verdict rather than 'True.'