The Department of Justice (DOJ) has terminated a number of immigration judges, with some reporting notification during ongoing court proceedings.
Judge Terminations Reported
Three immigration judges — Kyra Lilien, Anam Petit, and Tania Nemer — reported receiving termination notifications in 2023 or 2024. Ms. Lilien, hired in 2023 in Concord, Calif., was informed of her termination in July. Ms. Petit, hired in 2023 in Annandale, Virginia, received her notification in September. Ms. Nemer, hired in 2023 in Cleveland, was terminated in February. The article notes that Ms. Nemer's termination followed a period during the previous Trump administration when leaders at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) were dismissed, and an entire incoming class of 12 judges was fired. These dismissals have coincided with increased deportations by federal immigration authorities, who have sometimes identified judges as impediments to these efforts.
Observed Patterns and Data Analysis
Terminations have reportedly occurred every few months, often targeting judges nearing the end of their two-year probationary period. NPR independently identified 70 immigration judges who received termination notices from the Justice Department between February and October. This count aligns with data from the union representing immigration judges. Additionally, 11 assistant chief immigration judges (ACIJ), who supervise courthouses and manage dockets, were also reportedly terminated.
An analysis of the professional backgrounds of 70 terminated immigration judges indicated that approximately 44% had prior experience defending immigrants, without previous work history at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This figure is more than double the proportion of terminated judges who only had prior work history at DHS.
NPR's analysis of judges onboarded between February 2023 and November 2024, who are either nearing or within their probationary periods, showed that judges with prior DHS experience constituted the largest share of those remaining on the bench.
DOJ Response and Discrepancies
NPR sought comment from the DOJ, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), and the White House. An automatic email reply indicated that EOIR press staff were furloughed due to a federal government shutdown, though courts remained operational. The White House referred inquiries to the DOJ.
A DOJ spokesperson stated that the agency does not 'target' or 'prioritize' immigration judges for personnel decisions based on prior experience. The spokesperson affirmed that DOJ evaluates all judges based on factors such as conduct, impartiality, adherence to law, productivity, and professionalism. The spokesperson also noted that immigration judges are 'inferior officers' appointed and removed by the Attorney General, pursuant to Article II of the Constitution.
The DOJ spokesperson disputed NPR's count of 70 terminated judges, indicating a number fewer than 55, but was unable to provide additional details or reconcile the discrepancy due to furloughs.
Impact and Legal Actions
Terminated judges have pursued various avenues for clarification, including Freedom of Information Act requests, wrongful termination complaints, and lawsuits. Some judges have expressed concern that terminations might be based on protected classes.
Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, noted that the administration's approach to immigration courts reflects a prioritization of immigration enforcement.
The termination of judges can lead to significant case backlogs. Each terminated judge may leave behind thousands of cases, some of which had already involved years of waiting. These cases are often reassigned to other judges, resulting in new court dates extended as far as 2029.
Post-Probationary Terminations and Policy Considerations
Terminations have also occurred for judges serving beyond their probationary period. NPR tracked 12 judges fired who started prior to 2023, indicating removal after their two-year probationary period. Shira Levine, who had served since 2021, reported her termination in September, stating she was not given a reason. Ms. Levine suggested her termination might relate to her decisions on certain policy applications, such as denying 'motions to dismiss' cases when there was no individual change in a migrant's case.
Former judges Ila Deiss and Emmett Soper, who served as immigration judges since 2017 and 2016 respectively and had nearly two decades of career official experience at the DOJ, were also terminated. Mr. Soper expressed concern over the loss of experienced judges, emphasizing the complexity of the role.
Current Hiring and Historical Context
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has moved to reinstate immigration judges it characterized as unfairly dismissed by the Biden administration. In February, the DOJ issued a memo questioning the ethics and lawfulness of prior dismissals of immigration judges. Matthew O'Brien and David White, previously terminated under President Joe Biden, were reinstated in Virginia immigration courts; Mr. O'Brien was initially reinstated to a managerial position but is no longer with EOIR, and Mr. White is a judge at the Falls Church court.
Daren Margolin was appointed as the new director of EOIR in October. His background includes experience as an assistant chief immigration judge across California courts and as a military and DHS lawyer. He had previously left EOIR in 2024 before returning to lead the agency. The original article notes that he had been fired from a command position at a Marine base for negligently firing a gun before his return to EOIR.
Last month, the DOJ announced its first class of 2025, comprising 25 temporary judges who are military lawyers. The announcement stated, "EOIR is restoring its integrity as a preeminent administrative adjudicatory agency." The incoming class of permanent judges primarily consists of individuals with backgrounds in federal government work, including EOIR and DHS, such as trainers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, asylum officers, and ICE legal arm employees. None of the incoming judges appear to have prior experience in immigrant defense.
Historically, immigration judges' backgrounds have diversified. Dana Leigh Marks, a former immigration judge who joined the court in 1987 when it was under the Immigration and Naturalization Service, noted that early judges often had enforcement backgrounds. She observed a subsequent push for professional diversification. The Biden administration also selected judges with diverse backgrounds, including criminal defense attorneys, other administrative judges, and those with military experience.
Ms. Marks concluded that presidential administrations will continue to influence personnel decisions as long as immigration courts remain within the executive branch.