The Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented personnel changes within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees immigration courts, including the termination of numerous immigration judges. These actions have resulted in legal challenges from dismissed judges, a proposed congressional bill to define judge qualifications, and observed shifts in hiring practices. The changes have also led to increased case backlogs and court consolidations.
Overview of Judicial Terminations
Multiple immigration judges reported receiving termination notifications in 2023 and 2024, sometimes during ongoing court proceedings. Specific cases include Kyra Lilien, Anam Petit, and Tania Nemer, all hired in 2023 and terminated in 2023 or 2024. Nemer, hired in Cleveland, was terminated in February.
Nationwide, NPR identified 70 immigration judges who received termination notices between February and October. This count aligns with data from the union representing immigration judges. The DOJ, however, disputed this figure, stating the number was fewer than 55 and attributed the discrepancy to furloughs. In addition to immigration judges, 11 assistant chief immigration judges (ACIJ), who supervise courthouses, were also reportedly terminated. Cumulative reports from NPR and the judges' union indicated over 90 terminations of judges and supervisory personnel within a recent year-long period. One report stated that nearly 100 judges were terminated nationwide in 2025, contributing to many courts beginning 2026 with fewer judges.
Terminations have reportedly occurred every few months, frequently affecting judges nearing the end of their two-year probationary periods. However, some judges serving beyond their probationary periods were also terminated, with NPR tracking 12 such cases involving judges who started prior to 2023. Shira Levine, who had served since 2021, reported her termination in September without being given a reason. Former judges Ila Deiss and Emmett Soper, who had served since 2017 and 2016 respectively and held nearly two decades of career official experience at the DOJ, were also terminated.
Professional Backgrounds and Hiring Practices
An analysis 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 proportion was more than double that of terminated judges who solely had prior work history at DHS. Conversely, NPR's analysis of judges onboarded between February 2023 and November 2024, who are nearing or within their probationary periods, showed that judges with prior DHS experience constituted the largest share of those remaining on the bench.
The DOJ stated it does not 'target' or 'prioritize' immigration judges for personnel decisions based on prior experience. A spokesperson affirmed that judges are evaluated based on factors such as conduct, impartiality, adherence to law, productivity, and professionalism.
The DOJ has announced new hiring initiatives. In February, it issued a memo questioning prior dismissals of immigration judges under the Biden administration, leading to the reinstatement of some judges, including Matthew O'Brien and David White in Virginia. In October, Daren Margolin, a former assistant chief immigration judge with military and DHS legal experience, was appointed the new director of EOIR.
The DOJ's first class of 2025 comprises 25 temporary judges who are military lawyers. The incoming class of permanent judges primarily consists of individuals with backgrounds in federal government work, including EOIR and DHS. None of these incoming permanent judges appear to have prior experience in immigrant defense. A recruitment campaign launched in November seeks "deportation judges," a departure from previous terminology. Recruitment materials for these roles offered incentives and used phrases such as "Define America for generations" and "restore integrity and honor to our Nation's Immigration Court system."
Historically, the professional backgrounds of immigration judges have diversified. While early judges often had enforcement backgrounds, a subsequent push for diversification occurred. The Biden administration previously selected judges with diverse backgrounds, including criminal defense attorneys, other administrative judges, and military personnel.
Impact on Immigration Courts and Case Management
The terminations have contributed 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 or 2030.
In a related development, the San Francisco Immigration Court is scheduled to close by the end of the year, with personnel transferring to the Concord Immigration Court, approximately 30 miles away. An EOIR spokesperson indicated this move is intended for cost-effectiveness. The San Francisco court experienced a reduction from 21 judges to four judges and one supervisor at the beginning of this year due to terminations, retirements, and departures. The remaining 120,935 cases will be transferred or handled remotely.
At least two courts, in Aurora, Colorado, and Oakdale, Louisiana, currently operate with no active judges apart from a court supervisor. EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly stated that reducing the immigration court backlog is a high priority for the agency.
Legal Challenges and Government Response
Tania Nemer, a former immigration judge, filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., alleging her dismissal was discriminatory. Nemer claims her termination, despite favorable performance reviews, was based on her gender, her status as a dual citizen of Lebanon, and her past political activity. She asserts these factors violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the First Amendment.
Nemer's attorney, Nathaniel Zelinsky, stated that the government's legal position argues the President's authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to oversee the executive branch supersedes core civil rights legislation for federal employees. Nemer had previously filed a formal discrimination complaint with an Equal Employment Opportunity office, which dismissed her claims in September, asserting a conflict between Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the president's power to remove federal workers. Nemer's lawsuit notes that during the administrative process, a senior Justice Department official referenced driving offenses from the late 1990s and early 2000s, as well as two local tax cases, which Nemer had disclosed during her background check. The Justice Department has declined to comment on the ongoing lawsuit.
The DOJ spokesperson noted that immigration judges are 'inferior officers' appointed and removed by the Attorney General, pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) denied allegations of prioritizing judges who would be inclined to order deportations, stating judges are bound by legal, ethical, and professional obligations to act impartially.
Legislative and Policy Responses
Democrats in Congress, including Senator Adam Schiff and Representative Juan Vargas, have introduced legislation aimed at establishing specific qualification criteria for temporary immigration judges. The proposed bill would require temporary judges to have served on appellate panels, be an administrative judge in another agency, or possess a minimum of 10 years of experience in immigration law. This legislation would affect the administration's plan to deploy up to 600 military lawyers as temporary immigration judges, a plan that removed previous requirements for immigration law experience for these roles. The proposed legislation currently lacks Republican co-sponsors.
Senator Schiff commented that the administration's terminations of qualified judges and its strategy of utilizing temporary positions to expedite deportations have "significantly affected the justice system, raising risks related to families, fairness, and due process." Jeremiah Johnson, a terminated San Francisco immigration judge, stated he received no prior indication of performance issues and that he believed he was "fired for doing [his] job."
Concerns have been expressed by former immigration judges and legal practitioners that appointing individuals without prior immigration law experience could result in a learning curve and potential due process issues. The Pentagon has authorized up to 600 military lawyers from the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAGs) to serve as temporary immigration judges, with 25 already onboarded. An analysis by Mobile Pathways, a legal nonprofit, indicated that JAG judges have issued removal orders at a higher rate than other judges. Christopher Day, a JAG judge who granted asylum and relief from deportation at a higher rate than his JAG counterparts, has been removed from his position. EOIR declined to comment on specific personnel matters.