2 former immigration judges sue Trump administration over their removal
Two Former Immigration Judges Sue Trump Administration Over Their Removal
2 former immigration judges sue Trump – Two former immigration judges have launched legal action against the Trump administration, claiming their removal from federal service was driven by discriminatory practices targeting individuals based on political beliefs, gender, ethnicity, and prior involvement with immigrant advocacy groups. The lawsuits, filed recently, accuse the Department of Justice (DOJ) of systematically replacing judges with those aligned to the administration’s ideological priorities, undermining the fairness of the immigration court system. These allegations come amid a broader pattern of dismissals and reassignments under the current administration, which has been criticized for shifting the composition of the immigration judiciary to reflect its political agenda.
Carla Espinoza’s Case: A Targeted Dismissal
Carla Espinoza, a former immigration judge based in Chicago, is among the plaintiffs in the case. She was appointed to her position in August 2023 and was removed from the Department of Justice in the same month of the following year. Espinoza’s attorneys argue that her dismissal was not based on performance but rather on her affiliations with immigrant advocacy organizations and her personal characteristics, including race and sex. The complaint highlights that Espinoza, who had previously worked as an immigration lawyer, was subjected to unfair treatment after the administration’s policy shift in 2025, which emphasized curbing “illegal DEI preferences.”
“The federal government chose to fire from EOIR a disproportionate number of women, people of color, ethnic minorities, and persons associated therewith,” Espinoza’s legal team stated in the filing. This claim aligns with data from the National Association of Immigration Judges, which reports that 113 immigration judges have been removed during the Trump administration. Espinoza’s case is part of a larger effort to challenge the systematic replacement of judges perceived as sympathetic to immigrant rights.
According to the lawsuit, Espinoza was targeted during a period of transition when the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) began issuing memos that labeled immigrant advocacy groups as “extremist.” These memos, released in early 2025, promised to penalize judges who had supported diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which were seen as favoring marginalized communities. Espinoza’s attorneys further allege that the administration’s actions created a hostile environment for judges with backgrounds in immigrant advocacy, particularly women and people of color.
Kyra Lilien’s Allegations: A Systematic Campaign
Kyra Lilien, another former immigration judge, added her name to the lawsuit, accusing the federal government of using her removal as a strategic move to eliminate judges with progressive leanings. Lilien, who was appointed in 2023 and served at the Concord Immigration Court in California, saw her position end in 2025 without the routine conversion to a permanent role. Her legal team argues that the DOJ had a clear policy to convert probationary judges into permanent positions, but this practice was abruptly halted during the administration’s tenure.
“The memorandum stated that the Agency had reviewed the hiring materials of all Immigration Judges hired under the prior administration, and alleged that persons of ‘certain backgrounds’ were given favorable treatment over others,” Lilien’s attorneys noted in the complaint. They further claimed that the memo concluded EOIR was “committed to rectifying those harms,” which they argue was a pretext for targeting judges with DEI backgrounds.
Lilien’s case underscores the broader issue of political bias in the immigration judiciary. The administration’s memos explicitly stated that DEI efforts had been prioritized unfairly, leading to the removal of judges who were perceived as having “certain backgrounds.” This policy, according to the lawsuit, disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, who were more likely to have ties to immigrant advocacy groups. The legal documents filed by Lilien’s team detail how the DOJ’s actions created a climate where judges were forced to choose between their professional identities and their positions.
The Context of the Deportation Push
The lawsuits are part of a larger debate over the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. Since taking office, the administration has pursued aggressive deportation strategies, including the expansion of expedited removal processes and the targeting of individuals deemed “illegals” under new criteria. These efforts have been accompanied by changes in the immigration court system, where judges have been replaced to align with the administration’s vision of stricter immigration policies.
One of the key policies under scrutiny is the DOJ’s shift toward reducing DEI initiatives. The memos issued in early 2025 framed diversity efforts as a form of bias, arguing that they had led to the appointment of judges who favored certain groups over others. This perspective has been used to justify the removal of judges with backgrounds in immigrant advocacy, such as Espinoza and Lilien, who were accused of supporting “extremist” organizations. The legal filings suggest that the administration’s rhetoric was not just symbolic but part of a coordinated strategy to reshape the immigration judiciary.
Related Stories: Scams and Systemic Challenges
As the DOJ’s actions continue to draw attention, related stories highlight the growing challenges faced by immigrants in the U.S. system. A recent report from the National Association of Immigration Judges notes that the administration’s deportation push has led to an increase in “fake courtrooms” and “sham hearings,” where immigrants are given limited opportunities to present their cases. These practices, critics argue, undermine due process and contribute to the rapid removal of individuals from the country.
Another related issue is the role of social media in amplifying these challenges. The DA’s office in California has reported that Facebook accounts tied to immigration scams have been removed, revealing a pattern of online manipulation aimed at misleading immigrants about their legal options. These scams, which often mimic official government procedures, have been linked to the broader effort to streamline deportation processes and reduce the number of cases that could be prolonged through appeals or legal challenges.
Implications and Responses
The lawsuits raise important questions about the fairness and transparency of the immigration court system under the Trump administration. By targeting judges based on political affiliation and demographic characteristics, the DOJ has allegedly created a system where legal outcomes are influenced by personal biases rather than objective evidence. The removal of 113 judges, as reported by the National Association of Immigration Judges, suggests that the administration’s actions have significantly altered the composition of the immigration judiciary, with potential consequences for future cases.
While the administration claims its policies were necessary to streamline immigration enforcement, the legal arguments from Espinoza and Lilien challenge the validity of these claims. Their attorneys argue that the DOJ’s memos were not just policy statements but directives to implement a campaign of systemic discrimination. The case has sparked discussions about the role of the judiciary in ensuring equitable treatment of immigrants, with critics warning that the current approach may lead to long-term consequences for the legal system’s credibility.
ABC News has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment on the allegations. In response, the DOJ may need to clarify its policies on judge removals and explain how the criteria used to evaluate judges align with legal standards. The lawsuits serve as a reminder of the ongoing tensions between political goals and judicial independence, particularly in an era where immigration issues have become deeply polarized.