A former immigration judge filed a first-of-its-kind whistleblower complaint against the Justice Department on Thursday, alleging that she was fired two days after she reported that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “had unlawfully detained an unaccompanied minor who had just been in her courtroom.” The complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, adds a novel legal theory to an expanding wave of litigation by fired immigration judges challenging their terminations.
What changed
Chloe Dillon, an immigration judge in San Francisco until her dismissal last spring, also alleges that she had been warned months earlier that the White House was tracking her rulings on a new Trump administration policy that she had found unlawful. The lawsuit said Dillon received “excellent reviews” for her work as an immigration judge in San Francisco from September 2022 until August 2025, during which she “resolved thousands of cases” with “decisions [that] were almost never appealed.”
Dillon’s supervising assistant chief immigration judge then “informed her that ‘the White House’ was watching the issue and cautioned her against resisting the directive,” states the complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California. After she reported the unlawful ICE detention in August 2025, Dillon says the timing of her termination felt “too coincidental” since no other San Francisco judges were fired that day and her removal wasn’t part of any mass dismissal.
Why it matters
This case introduces a whistleblower retaliation theory—distinct from discrimination or constitutional claims—and may establish that executive branch employees can invoke statutory protections even in the context of at-will employment. Immigration judges, unlike federal U.S. district judges, circuit judges, and Supreme Court justices, do not have lifetime jobs and are not part of the judicial branch. Rather, they serve in the executive branch and are appointed by the U.S. attorney general after a “full background investigation.”
Because immigration judges sit within the executive branch under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, they lack the job protections of federal judges. The administration has fired at least 135 of them since President Donald Trump returned to office, and the Merit Systems Protection Board has ruled the attorney general may remove them at will, a decision now under appeal. Dillon’s complaint challenges whether that at-will authority extends to retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity.
Dillon is among several fired judges challenging their dismissals, some alleging discrimination based on gender, age or ethnicity. Her whistleblower angle may resonate with courts skeptical of broad executive removal power when the underlying termination appears to punish the employee for reporting illegal conduct.
Way forward
For practitioners advising clients facing removal in deportation cases:
- Track whether your judge’s rulings have attracted administrative scrutiny or anecdotal evidence of White House monitoring; Dillon’s allegations suggest this can occur and may support future appeals or collateral motions if judicial bias is implicated.
- Familiarize yourself with the EOIR appeal process and the Board of Immigration Appeals. A judge’s sudden removal mid-case may create procedural opportunities if the removal undermines due process or judicial impartiality.
For immigration attorneys considering suit over judge termination:
- Whistleblower retaliation claims may avoid difficult causation issues in discrimination cases; they require proof that (a) protected activity occurred, (b) an adverse employment action followed, and (c) a causal nexus—timing can be powerful evidence.
- Document all communications regarding policy resistance, complaints to supervisors, or pressure from above. Dillon’s supervisor’s warning about White House monitoring became a key fact in her complaint.
Disclaimer
This article summarizes a federal court filing and does not constitute legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is a software platform maintained by an immigration law information company, not a law firm. Do not rely on this article as a substitute for representation by a licensed attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. Verify all facts against the primary source linked above and consult with counsel before taking action. Immigration policy and court procedure change without notice; check the source URL and current EOIR guidance before relying on any assertion in this article.