Former San Francisco immigration judge Chloe Dillon filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit Thursday accusing the Department of Justice of terminating her for raising due process concerns over new policy directives and ICE enforcement tactics. Dillon is among 14 San Francisco judges fired since President Trump’s return to office and is the first of the group to sue over her removal. The termination came roughly 48 hours after Dillon raised concerns with a supervisor about the detention of an unaccompanied minor asylum seeker who had appeared in her courtroom.
What changed
Chloe Dillon filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging she was terminated in August 2025 in retaliation for whistleblowing, about 48 hours after she emailed a supervisor about what she described as potential statutory-law and due-process violations involving ICE’s detention of an unaccompanied minor after a court hearing.
Dillon determined the man had entered the country alone at 17 and therefore was an unaccompanied minor, a status she believed barred expedited removal and required his asylum application to first be heard by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Dillon said she emailed then-Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Loi McCleskey that afternoon, raising concerns about possible violations of law and due process and saying courthouse arrests were disrupting the administration of justice.
On August 22, 2025, Dillon was terminated without cause, via an emailed letter citing only ‘Article II of the Constitution.’ Dillon was not provided notice and an opportunity to be heard, nor did EOIR claim to remove her for any statutorily allowable reason.
Her lawsuit, filed Thursday in the Northern District of California, accuses the Justice Department of violating the Whistleblower Protection Act, the First and Fifth amendments and federal administrative law. Dillon’s suit is seeking reinstatement as an immigration judge, as well as back pay, lost benefits and compensatory damages.
Why it matters
This lawsuit directly challenges the Trump administration’s mass termination of immigration judges and raises critical issues for practitioners working in removed-alien proceedings:
Due process and expedited removal mechanics. Dillon said the detained minor could not be placed in expedited removal proceedings and had the right to have his already-filed asylum application considered first. If the court sides with Dillon’s legal theory, it could affect how practitioners advise clients about the order of proceedings, the blocking effect of prior asylum filings, and ICE’s obligations at checkpoint/courthouse encounters. Practitioners need to understand the legal framework Dillon invoked.
Judicial independence and retaliation doctrine. Dillon 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. If evidence of White House pressure on judicial decisions emerges in discovery, it could support broader constitutional claims about separation of powers and the executive’s authority over immigration judges—and provide ammunition for other judges’ removal litigation.
Enforcement tactics at the courthouse. Dillon raised concerns about possible violations of law and due process and said courthouse arrests were disrupting the administration of justice, stating, “I was concerned about this unlawful detention. I was concerned that these heavy-handed enforcement tactics were impeding the orderly administration of justice.” Practitioners advising clients on whether to appear in person, how ICE coordinates with EOIR, and what protections may or may not exist should monitor this litigation.
Scale of judicial turnover. The Trump administration has fired more than 100 immigration judges since January 2025, according to Bloomberg Law. MS NOW reported at least 135 had been fired since Trump returned to office. Dillon is the first SF judge to sue; her case may signal a wave of federal litigation and could establish precedent on retaliation claims, attorney’s-fee exposure, and reinstatement remedies.
Way forward
-
Track the federal litigation. The government will have about 60 days to respond to the lawsuit, and once any motions are resolved, discovery will follow. Obtain copies of Dillon’s complaint and any DOJ responses through PACER (Northern District of California); they will outline the legal and factual theories relevant to expedited removal, asylum application priority, and ICE detention authority.
-
Document ICE courthouse conduct in your own cases. If clients are subject to ICE arrests or enforcement at courthouse appearances, document the circumstances (date, time, who was present, what ICE agents said or did, any alleged violations). These facts may support future whistleblower or civil-rights claims and could strengthen your own litigation record.
-
Review unaccompanied-minor asylum filings. If you represent UAC asylum seekers or have pending UAC cases, confirm whether a prior asylum application has been filed and verify that expedited-removal procedures have not been initiated in parallel. Dillon’s theory—that UAC status and a filed asylum application bar expedited removal—should be tested against current EOIR memo and case law you cite in your briefs.
-
Communicate with clients about judge assignment changes. Dillon is among 14 San Francisco judges fired since President Trump’s return to office. Clients with pending cases in San Francisco should receive written notice of any judge reassignment; Dillon’s removal, and that of other judges, may delay hearings or require reargument before a new judge.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. articles.folaform.com is a software platform, not a law firm. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before relying on any information in this article or before making filing decisions. Federal litigation and immigration policy can change without notice. Verify the status of Dillon v. DOJ and all applicable law against the original court filings and current USCIS/EOIR guidance linked above before advising a client or taking action.