At least eight fired judges, all Biden-era appointees whom the Trump administration declined to retain at the end of their two-year probationary periods, have sued. In a federal court challenge, a former immigration judge urged a D.C. federal court not to throw out her bias suit challenging her firing, arguing the U.S. Department of Justice was pushing the “breathtaking proposition” that the president was empowered to commit unlawful discrimination. The litigation raises a fundamental question: can federal anti-discrimination laws limit the executive’s power to fire immigration judges?
What changed
The fired judges say they were given no explanation for their firings and denied recourse by the Justice Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity staff. The Trump administration, in response, is asserting the power to fire immigration judges for any reason.
The plaintiffs allege that protected-class status drove their terminations. Female ex-judges claimed they were targeted in part due to their sex. Ex-judges of Cuban, Mexican, Lebanese, and Greek heritage claim they were discriminated against for their ethnicity. Ex-judges over 40 said their age played a role. One ex-judge says he was fired in part because he’s openly gay. All eight ex-judges who filed suit also said their firings were partially motivated by their prior advocacy for immigrants or affiliation with the Democratic party.
Probationary immigration judges aren’t eligible to seek relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews wrongful termination claims. Two judges fired after their probationary periods have appealed a ruling from two Republican board members affirming the attorney general’s authority to terminate their positions without restrictions.
Why it matters
The Trump administration’s argument—that executive authority under Article II of the Constitution allows unfettered firing of immigration judges—directly challenges whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other federal anti-discrimination statutes apply to probationary federal employees. The litigation accuses the Trump administration of claiming its authority to hire and fire executive branch officials can override federal anti-discrimination protections. “They’re saying the president and the attorney general are immune from anti-discrimination laws,” attorney Kevin Owen said.
For practitioners and applicants, the stakes are high: “When you give the administration almost unfettered authority to fire or discipline immigration judges, it makes it very hard for them to be neutral adjudicators,” said Emmett Soper, a former immigration judge who served as counsel to the EOIR director during the Biden administration. If the administration can terminate judges without legal constraint, pressure to adjudicate cases in alignment with mass deportation policy may intensify.
The litigation also signals a procedural hurdle. Fired judges could find it difficult to prove that protected classes were part of the calculus for their terminations. “That tends to be one of the hardest pieces to prove in discrimination cases: not just that the adverse employment action was taken for a bad reason, but that it was taken for an unlawful reason,” said Tamara Slater, a shareholder at Alan Lescht and Associates PC.
Way forward
-
Monitor ongoing litigation. The lawsuits, filed in various federal district courts, aim to develop more extensive case law on the Trump administration’s unitary executive argument. Track outcomes in these cases—they may establish binding or persuasive precedent on judicial independence and executive power.
-
Preserve evidence of bias. If you represent applicants or clients in cases heard by recently terminated judges, document any pattern of dismissals, demographic characteristics of fired judges, or statements suggesting ideologically-driven adjudication. Such evidence may become material in discrimination litigation or appeals.
-
Assess judge assignment implications. If your case is reassigned to a newly hired judge, request their background and credentials. The Justice Department has also fired more than 100 sitting immigration judges and is now advertising to hire so-called “deportation judges” in their place. Understanding who is presiding over your case matters for strategic planning.
-
Reference anti-discrimination law in motions and briefs. If applicable, cite federal employment discrimination statutes to support arguments that the adjudication process must remain neutral and free from bias—reinforcing the principle at stake in the fired judges’ litigation.
Disclaimer
Fola Editorial is a software company and this article is for informational purposes only—it is not legal advice. Federal employment law, Title VII, and immigration court procedure are complex and fact-specific. Consult a licensed immigration attorney or civil rights lawyer to understand how this litigation may affect your case. Policy and court precedent can change without notice; verify all information against the primary source linked above and consult current legal counsel before making filing or strategy decisions.