The Trump administration has slashed the ranks of immigration judges in a drive to speed up deportations, and two fired Justice Department immigration judges have appealed a federal panel’s decision affirming the attorney general’s authority to terminate their positions, arguing it violates a century of US Supreme Court precedent. Meanwhile, a former immigration judge filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, alleging that she was terminated because of her sex, age, political affiliation, and past association with immigrant advocacy organizations—claiming violations of Title VII and the First Amendment. These cases pit statutory employment protections against the administration’s expansive reading of presidential removal power under Article II of the Constitution.
What changed
The Merit Systems Protection Board issued an order affirming the Attorney General’s constitutional authority to terminate immigration judges without cause. The two-member panel found that the immigration judges qualify as “inferior officers” removable at will under Article II of the Constitution.
Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, were fired last year as part of an early wave of terminations that have pushed out more than 100 immigration judges. They appealed the federal panel’s decision affirming the attorney general’s authority to terminate their positions, arguing it violates a century of US Supreme Court precedent.
Separately, Kyra Lilien, who served at the Concord Immigration Court, filed a federal lawsuit challenging her removal from the bench, alleging she was discriminated against based on gender, age and her association with immigrant rights groups. The DOJ is claiming that federal employment statutes passed by Congress do not apply to Immigration Judges, and asserting that the Attorney General and the President are permitted to discriminate against Immigration Judges on the basis of their race, sex, national origin, religion, age, color, or disability.
Federal trial judges are starting to invoke President Donald Trump’s vision of a unitary executive against him in cases linked to his administration’s immigration crackdown, even as the Justice Department is pushing the Supreme Court to embrace the theory to expand Trump’s powers while simultaneously stressing compartmentalization across government when facing scrutiny from lower courts.
Why it matters
The outcome of these lawsuits will determine whether immigration judges retain statutory civil service protections—including protection against termination without cause—or can be fired at the President’s sole discretion. Since early in Trump’s second term, the constitutional re-interpretation that presidents can override statutory removal protections has been the administration’s repeatedly stated basis for mass terminations of federal workers whose employment rights have long been protected under civil service law.
For practitioners, the stakes are high:
- Judge continuity: If at-will removal holds, no judge assignment is stable; cases could be reassigned mid-hearing or on motion.
- Statutory safeguards: If anti-discrimination laws (Title VII, ADEA) do not apply to immigration judges, those protections are hollowed out across the federal bench.
- Appellate liability: A Federal Circuit or Supreme Court ruling against the judges will embolden the administration in other removal cases; a ruling in their favor will restore statutory protections.
Legal experts say her lawsuit could have broader implications for immigration judges removed under the Trump administration.
Way forward
- Monitor the Federal Circuit appeal in Jackler and Jaroch at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The terminated judges will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- Track parallel discrimination suits filed by individual judges (Lilien, Nemer, Espinoza, Chamberlain, and others). These are proceeding in federal district courts and may create circuit splits that reach SCOTUS.
- Document case assignment changes for any pending matters. If a judge is terminated mid-proceeding, note the reassignment and any impact on hearing dates, rulings, or the record.
- Advise clients on judicial independence uncertainty. Until these cases are resolved, counsel clients that the immigration court system faces structural instability; consider impact on case timing and judge-shopping strategy.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The interpretation and application of executive power doctrine in federal employment cases is highly complex and rapidly evolving. Consult with a licensed immigration attorney about how these developments may affect your individual circumstances or pending cases. Policy and law can change without notice; always verify against primary sources, including the case filings and MSPB decisions linked above.