This is one outlet's own report from Newsweek — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
Todd Blanche Battles Fired Immigration Judges in Court
0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search. Attorney General Todd Blanche has filed responses to two of three lawsuits brought against the Trump administration by fired immigration judges who have alleged their removals were due to discrimination.
More than 100 immigration judges have been removed from their jobs since President Donald Trump returned to office in January last year. Since then, the Trump administration has sought to reshape the immigration court system as it made immigration enforcement and mass deportations key priorities in his second term.
This week, Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys filed motions, which Newsweek reviewed, seeking to dismiss lawsuits brought by two of the fired judges, arguing they lack merit and that the attorney general is permitted to remove immigration judges at will.
While the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for carrying out Trump’s mass deportation agenda, immigration courts fall under the purview of the DOJ. Federal courts have strict rules and give judges lifetime tenure, but the attorney general can fire immigration judges with fewer restraints.
Blanche’s filings are the latest episode in a legal battle over the administration's treatment of immigration judges, who play a central role in deciding asylum claims and deportation cases.
Critics have argued that the removals undermine judicial independence, while Blanche has said the department is working to root out judges who are ruling too slowly or aren’t following the law as it works to cut down on the backlog of millions of pending immigration cases.
Newsweek has contacted attorneys for the DOJ and the former immigration judges for comment via email.
The three judges said in their lawsuits that after serving two-year probationary terms, they were not appointed to permanent positions. They note that per DOJ policy, immigration judges are initially appointed to serve two-year terms, after which their appointments are “routinely” converted to permanent positions.
The complaints allege that many of the immigration judges who have been terminated were people of color, ethnic minorities or had a history or representing or advocating for immigrants.
According to a lawsuit brought by Carla Espinoza, she was appointed to a two-year probationary term as an immigration judge in Chicago in July 2023 that was not converted to a permanent position in the summer of 2025 despite her “exemplary performance.”
The complaint alleges the DOJ discriminated against her because she has a Hispanic surname and because of her prior work representing immigrants.
In a motion to dismiss filed on August 25, DOJ attorneys representing Blanche asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit.
The government argued the complaint “does not plausibly allege” that Espinoza is entitled to relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the First Amendment.
She “fails to plausibly allege that she was terminated because of her sex (female), race (Hispanic) or national origin (Mexican),” the filing said.
Her complaint “merely alleges that some immigration judges of the same sex were terminated months earlier and that the Department did not offer a permanent position to some non-white immigration judges of various races at the same time that her position was not made permanent,” it adds.
The attorneys also argued that because Espinoza “was an immigration judge—an inferior officer exercising significant executive power and discretion—she was removable at will by the Attorney General under Article II of the Constitution.”
A day earlier, DOJ attorneys filed a similar motion seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by former California immigration judge Kyra Lilien. Lilien was notified in July last year that her two-year probationary term would not be converted to a permanent position despite her meeting or exceeding all performance standards, according to her complaint, which was also filed in May.
She alleges she was discriminated against because of her age, her sex, her political affiliation, her past association with Hispanic individuals and prior work for an immigrants’ rights nonprofit organization.
The motion to dismiss argues Lilien's complaint is “heavy on conclusory statements and speculation and light on allegations of fact.”
The DOJ attorneys also argue that she failed to establish that similarly situated judges outside her protected groups were treated differently or that her political beliefs played any role in her termination.
As in Espinoza's case, the attorneys argued that immigration judges serve as executive branch officers who may be removed without cause by the attorney general.
Blanche’s attorneys have not yet filed a response to a third lawsuit brought by George Pappas, who had served in immigration courts in Boston and Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
In his complaint, Pappas alleges he was denied a permanent appointment despite exceeding all performance standards and “consistently receiving the highest performance rating available.”
Pappas alleges he was discriminated against because of his Greek national origin, his age, his political affiliation, his past work representing immigrants and his advocacy for immigrants and immigrant rights.
The complaint said DOJ officials had issued memoranda that “laid bare DOJ management’s hostility to the utilization of diverse immigration judges and those whose legal backgrounds included the representation of immigrants.”
The lawsuits come amid the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul the immigration court system.
Blanche, who has led the DOJ since the ousting of Pam Bondi in April and was confirmed by the Senate earlier this month, defended the dismissal of immigration judges in an interview with The Associated Press in May, saying changes were necessary to make the courts more efficient and focused on ...
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.
