Former Immigration Judges Sue Trump Administration Over Alleged Political Discrimination judges Carla Espinoza and Kyra Lilien

Two former immigration judges have filed lawsuits against the administration of Donald Trump, alleging they were unfairly removed from their positions due to political affiliation, race, sex, age, and ties to immigrant advocacy organizations.

The lawsuits, filed separately by former judges Carla Espinoza and Kyra Lilien, accuse the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) of discriminatory employment practices tied to broader shifts in immigration policy.

The lawsuit adds to growing legal scrutiny surrounding the federal government’s treatment of immigration court personnel, including judges, during the current administration.

Claims of Bias and Retaliation

Carla Espinoza, who served as an immigration judge in Chicago after being appointed in 2023, alleges she was terminated because of her previous work as an immigration attorney and because she is a woman of color. According to her complaint, internal DOJ memoranda issued in early 2025 characterized immigrant advocacy groups as “extremist” and criticized Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring efforts.

Her lawsuit claims that after these policy changes, the agency disproportionately targeted women, ethnic minorities, and individuals associated with immigrant-rights organizations.

Similarly, Kyra Lilien, who presided over cases at the Concord Immigration Court in California, alleges her dismissal was politically motivated. Her complaint argues that she was not retained after her probationary period despite receiving strong performance evaluations and meeting all professional standards.

Disputed Probationary Policies

Both former judges argue that the DOJ traditionally converted probationary immigration judges into permanent appointments after successful evaluations. However, they claim this practice abruptly changed under the Trump administration.

Kyra Lilien’s lawsuit alleges that agency leadership reviewed hiring decisions made during the previous administration and sought to reverse what officials described as “illegal DEI preferences.” Her attorneys argue these actions reflected hostility toward women, Democrats, immigrant-rights advocates, and bilingual legal professionals.

The complaint further claims that memoranda issued by EOIR leadership openly criticized employees connected to immigration advocacy groups, contributing to a hostile work environment.

Broader Debate Over Immigration Courts and DEI Policies

The lawsuits arrive amid broader national debates over immigration enforcement, judicial independence, and diversity initiatives within federal agencies. According to the National Association of Immigration Judges, more than 100 immigration judges have reportedly been removed during the current administration.

Critics argue the dismissals could undermine the impartiality of immigration courts, while supporters of the administration’s policies say reforms are necessary to eliminate political bias and restore accountability.

Legal experts note that the cases may raise important constitutional questions involving civil rights protections, employment discrimination laws, and First Amendment freedoms.

DOJ Yet to Respond Publicly

The Department of Justice has not yet issued a formal public response to the allegations. However, the lawsuits are expected to draw national attention as they move through federal court.

If successful, the cases could have broader implications for hiring practices and political neutrality within the immigration court system, especially ahead of the 2026 election cycle and ongoing immigration policy debates.