The American immigration court system faces an unprecedented crisis that threatens the foundations of immigration justice. More than 100 immigration judges have been removed from the bench under the Trump administration, triggering fierce legal battles that could fundamentally reshape how immigration adjudication operates throughout the United States.
These aren’t voluntary departures or quiet resignations. These are career civil servants—many with decades of experience—who claim they were fired without documented cause, stripped of due process protections guaranteed under federal civil service law, and dismissed for what they believe are political reasons. Now they’re mounting coordinated legal challenges through Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appeals, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discrimination complaints, and federal lawsuits that could set precedents affecting the entire federal workforce.
Whether you’re an asylum seeker navigating the immigration system, an immigration attorney representing clients, a policy advocate working on reform, or simply someone concerned about fairness and accountability in government, understanding what’s happening in immigration courts matters deeply for the future of American justice and the rule of law.
The Scope: How Many Immigration Judges Have Been Terminated?
According to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE)—the union representing immigration judges nationwide—at least 128 judges were removed or resigned by September 2025. In July 2025 alone, 17 immigration judges across ten different states received dismissal notices in what appeared to be a coordinated effort.
Many judges received brief, three-sentence emails with no detailed explanation of performance deficiencies, no opportunity to respond to allegations, and no warning signs despite years of satisfactory service. The U.S. immigration court system already struggled with a massive backlog approaching 3.5 million pending cases. Removing over 100 experienced judges during a severe staffing crisis raises critical questions about whether efficiency and improved case processing genuinely drive these decisions, or whether other political motivations are at play.
Why Judges Say Their Terminations Were Unlawful
Violation of Civil Service Protections
Immigration judges are federal employees covered by comprehensive civil service protections specifically designed to prevent politically motivated firings and ensure fair treatment of career government workers. Yet numerous terminated judges report their dismissals completely bypassed the standard protective procedures that should have applied to their cases.
Many received no performance warnings, no documentation of alleged misconduct or performance deficiencies, and no opportunity to address concerns before termination arrived. One former judge stated: “I was fired with a three-sentence email and no explanation despite stellar performance reviews.” Federal merit-system law clearly requires documented cause for termination of career civil servants. The judges argue their dismissals violated these fundamental protections by treating them like at-will employees who can be dismissed for any reason or no reason at all.
Discrimination Based on Gender, Race, and Ethnicity
Several immigration judges are filing formal EEOC discrimination complaints, pointing to troubling demographic patterns in the terminations. A disproportionate number of terminated judges appear to be women and ethnic minorities, raising serious questions about whether protected characteristics influenced dismissal decisions.
Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge appointed in 2023, believes her ethnicity and specific judicial rulings contributed directly to her dismissal. Espinoza had granted relief to a Mexican immigrant who was wrongly accused of threatening the then-President—a decision that required careful legal analysis and courage to make. Not long after that high-profile ruling, she received her termination notice. She plans to file comprehensive EEOC discrimination claims challenging her dismissal on both ethnic and retaliation grounds.
Political Retaliation: The Case of Jennifer Peyton
Jennifer Peyton, a supervising immigration judge in Chicago with substantial administrative responsibilities, had consistently strong performance reviews throughout her career and maintained a completely clean disciplinary record. Then came a three-sentence termination letter offering absolutely no explanation for her dismissal.
Peyton suspects two specific factors contributed to her firing: First, her name appeared on a so-called “bureaucrat watchdog list”—an informal compilation of federal employees viewed as obstacles to aggressive policy implementation. Second, she coordinated a courthouse tour for Senator Dick Durbin, a prominent Illinois Democrat who has been openly critical of harsh immigration enforcement measures and mass deportation policies.
Senator Durbin himself publicly called Peyton’s termination an “abuse of power” and has demanded comprehensive accountability from the Attorney General, including detailed documentation of the decision-making process behind her dismissal.
The Legal Battleground: MSPB Appeals and Class Actions
Merit Systems Protection Board: Primary Legal Forum
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) serves as the main forum for federal employees challenging adverse employment actions. Immigration judges are filing MSPB appeals arguing their terminations lacked proper cause, violated civil service protections, and were motivated by discrimination or retaliation. They seek reinstatement, back pay, and restored seniority.
However, the MSPB itself faced attacks during this period, with board members removed without stated cause, creating questions about the board’s independence.
EEOC Complaints and Class Actions
Multiple judges are filing EEOC complaints alleging discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, and national origin. EEOC complaints follow different procedures than MSPB appeals and can run concurrently.
There’s also discussion about class-action approaches where multiple judges argue they were all terminated under the same unlawful policy. Class actions offer pooled resources and stronger bargaining positions, though they must meet certification requirements showing cases are similar enough to resolve together.
Why Judicial Independence Matters in Immigration Courts
The Structural Problem: DOJ Employment
Unlike federal judges serving under Article III with lifetime tenure, immigration judges are Department of Justice employees working for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) under the Attorney General.
This means immigration judges serve at the pleasure of the executive branch without lifetime tenure, salary protection, or constitutional insulation from political pressure. Legal scholars have warned about this structural problem for decades. The current firings transform theoretical concerns into reality.
The Chilling Effect on Remaining Judges
Multiple current immigration judges—often speaking anonymously—describe the atmosphere as “walking on eggshells,” constantly worried that lenient decisions could trigger termination.
This creates a chilling effect where judges may rule defensively, denying asylum claims even when law and evidence suggest otherwise, to avoid appearing soft on immigration. When judges fear firing for legally sound decisions, the system shifts from neutral adjudication toward enforcement prioritization.
Real-World Impact on Immigrants
For asylum seekers fleeing persecution, families fighting to stay together, and long-term residents contesting removal, judicial independence is the difference between fair hearings and foregone conclusions.
Immigration attorneys in several jurisdictions report noticing shifts in judicial approach after terminations. One California attorney observed: “There’s more reluctance to grant relief, more focus on finding reasons to deny.”
The Immigration Court Backlog Crisis
The terminations occur amid severe operational crisis. The immigration court system faces 3.5 million cases pending, with wait times of several years and judges handling thousands of cases simultaneously. Removing over 100 experienced judges seems counterintuitive if improving efficiency is the genuine goal.
Administration officials justify terminations by pointing to performance concerns, arguing some judges processed cases too slowly and failed to meet completion targets. However, case completion rate variations often reflect complexity and thoroughness rather than inefficiency.
Matt Biggs, IFPTE president, called the firings “unconscionable,” arguing the administration opted for mass terminations when courts needed stability most. “This undermines the law, wastes taxpayer dollars, and further delays justice,” Biggs stated.
Congressional Oversight and Reform Proposals
Senator Dick Durbin, Senate Judiciary Committee chair, has demanded explanations for terminations, documentation of performance issues, and assurances against political retaliation. Congressional oversight hearings appear likely.
The controversy has renewed momentum for reform proposals including Article I immigration courts outside DOJ with greater independence, enhanced civil service protections similar to administrative law judges, and merit-based appointment processes through independent commissions. These reforms face political hurdles but the current crisis may provide needed catalyst.
Impact on Asylum Seekers and Case Outcomes
The terminations ripple through the immigration system, affecting countless individuals whose cases depend on fair adjudication.
Removing 100+ judges while millions of cases sit pending means scheduled hearings get continued, new judges need training, institutional knowledge disappears, and processing times stretch further. When experienced judges are replaced, case outcomes become less predictable.
Perhaps most concerning is potential shift in decisions. If remaining judges feel pressure to align with enforcement priorities rather than apply law neutrally, immigrants lose entitled fair hearings. Some attorneys report increased reluctance to grant relief and more focus on denials.
The Human Cost
One former judge shared: “I dedicated 15 years to immigration law. I worked through the backlog, wrote careful decisions, treated everyone with dignity. Then I got a three-sentence email.”
These terminations devastate families. Many relocated for positions, purchasing homes. Sudden termination means lost health insurance, children changing schools, mortgages without income, and damaged reputations.
Current judges describe second-guessing decisions, worrying colleague firings set examples, and feeling unable to raise concerns.
What Happens Next
Key questions remain unresolved. Will the MSPB assert jurisdiction? Can judges prove discrimination through discovery? Will congressional oversight lead to legislative reform? Who are the replacement judges?
These answers will determine not only individual careers but the fundamental nature of immigration courts for years to come.
Implications for Democracy
Beyond immigration cases, the terminations raise fundamental governance questions. When adjudicators can be fired for decisions based on law rather than policy preferences, rule of law itself comes under pressure.
The federal civil service system exists to prevent this politicization. Career professionals should work based on expertise, not political calculations. When protections fail, entire classes of government employees become vulnerable to political purges.
The ongoing legal challenges, congressional oversight, and public debate represent checks and balances working as designed. Whether these checks prove effective will reveal much about American democratic institutional health.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many immigration judges have been fired under the Trump administration?
According to IFPTE, at least 128 judges were removed or resigned by September 2025, including coordinated terminations across multiple states.
What is the Merit Systems Protection Board?
The MSPB is a quasi-judicial body handling federal employee grievances over adverse employment actions, designed to protect workers from politically motivated firings.
Can immigration judges claim the same protections as other federal employees?
This key legal question remains contested. Immigration judges are DOJ employees covered by civil service protections but aren’t Article III judges with lifetime tenure.
What grounds are judges using to appeal their terminations?
Judges appeal based on lack of proper cause, violation of due process protections, discrimination by gender/race/ethnicity, and political retaliation for decisions.
How do these terminations affect asylum seekers?
Terminations create longer case backlogs, less experienced judges handling complex claims, and potential chilling effects where remaining judges feel pressure to deny cases.
What is the Department of Justice’s position on the terminations?
DOJ officials argue some judges were inefficient or failed performance standards, framing terminations as necessary reform to improve courts and reduce backlogs.
Could these judges be reinstated?
Yes, if MSPB appeals or federal lawsuits succeed, judges could be reinstated with back pay and restored seniority, though resolution could take years.
What does this mean for judicial independence in immigration courts?
The terminations raise serious concerns about whether immigration judges can truly be independent when they can be fired for decisions the executive branch dislikes.
Are there proposals to reform the immigration court system?
Yes, proposals include creating Article I immigration courts outside DOJ control, providing tenure protections similar to administrative law judges, and establishing independent appointment commissions.
What can people do to support fired judges or advocate for reform?
Individuals can contact congressional representatives supporting immigration court reform, donate to legal defense funds, and support organizations advocating for judicial independence.
