In the second presidency of Donald Trump, an immigration judge-dismissal tsunami has swept through every state in the nation. What began as isolated firings has expanded into a wider legal and institutional battle, with former judges contesting their removals and raising alarms about threats to judicial independence.
These career civil servants argue that their dismissals were without cause, violated merit-system protections and threatened to undercut impartiality in the immigration court system. And the courts whose public worked they performed are burdened by tremendous backlogs and growing scrutiny.
This article will overview the scale of the terminations, legal pushback and implications for the immigration justice system and asylum seekers.
The Scope of the Terminations
Dozens of immigration judges have been dismissed since the new administration began. A judges’ union said that 17 judges were fired in ten states, in July 2025. The union — the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) — which represents workers at Mount Weather warns that more than 100 have been fired or resigned under pressure, including claims of up to 128 by September 2025.
These removals took place when the nation’s immigration courts were already groaning under a backlog in the millions of cases. For as far back as seven years, many judges — including those still in probationary periods — were reportedly sent short termination emails with minimal explanation.
The turnover has played out, therefore, amid one of the most tension-ridden periods in immigration court history.
Judges’ Arguments: No Cause, Bias, and Political Malice
Former jurists leading lawsuits are making three central claims:
- Terminations lacked proper cause
- A few firings were along discriminatory (race, or ethnicity) lines
- Removals were politically or policy driven
One recent case involved Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising immigration judge in Chicago ousted this year through a three-sentence termination letter despite strong performance evaluations. She thinks being on a “bureaucrat watchdog list” and going on a courthouse tour with a senior senator played into her dismissal.
“Rarely has one decision resulted in so much outcry,” said Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who called her ouster a “clear abuse of power.”
A second judge, Carla Espinoza of Chicago, appointed in 2023, says that her firing was tied to her race and a decision she made in a politically fraught case. “I am going to file with the EEOC for discrimination,” she said.
Some judges also say the changes disproportionately hurt women and members of certain ethnic groups.
Procedural Concerns
All too many of dismissed judges find their dismissals carried out by something that looks very similar to a reduction-in-force, but without the safeguards:
- documented cause
- performance review justification
- advance notice
- opportunity to respond
They say the federal merit system was skirted and that immigration judges were treated as at-will employees rather than fair-minded adjudicators.
The Legal Push-Back: Appeals and Lawsuits
Dismissed judges are contesting the actions taken against them through:
- appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
- EEOC discrimination claims
- individual lawsuits
- potential class appeals
- These measures call for relief such as:
- reinstatement
- back pay
- restoration of leave and seniority
A central legal issue is whether immigration judges — who are employees of the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) rather than Article III courts — should receive the same job protection as other federal civil servants.
Structural Obstacles
Some legal analysts caution that the Office of Special Counsel and even the MSPB have had their own staffing and independence problems, which could complicate appeals.
Meanwhile, congressional scrutiny is increasing. The Attorney general has been asked by Senator Durbin to explain the firings.
Context: Backlogs and Policy Pressures
The terminations were coming as the immigration court backlog has reached nearly 3.5 million cases at times.
The administration says that reform is needed to make more efficient and speed up the process of deporting individuals. Critics counter that:
- performance quotas
- expedited timelines
- removal of experienced judges
- could further erode due process and the independence of the judiciary.
Union representatives say it’s counterproductive to get rid of experienced judges while the system is still understaffed.
Why It Matters: Independence, Fairness and Public Trust
Here are decisions that immigration judges — who have:
- separate families
- grant or deny asylum
- removal order entered in the United States
Because immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice and they don’t belong to an independent judiciary what we are talking about is limited institutional independence.
Former judges say that other judges now feel pressure to make decisions mirroring policy priorities. Critics say this may shift the system toward enforcing instead of fair adjudication.
Indeed, if judges are threatened with firing for reaching decisions thought to conflict with policy, public confidence in their equity may be compromised.
Where Things Stand
As of late 2025:
- scores of judges on immigration have been dismissed
- The laws have been the subject of legal challenges and appeals
- congressional oversight is increasing
- ‘S’immigration courts still in crisis as extreme backlog leads to discriminatory proceedings
- Unresolved questions include:
- whether judges will be reinstated
- how probationary status affects protections
- whether systemic reform will follow
Real Voices from the Bench
One former judge said he was left “incredulous” after receiving emails terminating his job with no reason given for the dismissal. Others say what remains of the judges feel they are “walking on eggshells.”
“The removal of experienced judges at a time when our caseloads are heaviest is something that undermines straight-forward enforcement of the law, wastes the taxpayers’ money, and delays justice,” said IFPTE President Matt Biggs.
What This Means for The Future
The legal precedents may help reshape immigration court governance.
If judges prevail:
- such that there rises a stronger employment protection may be upheld
- fast bench re-shuffling may not be possible
- If challenges fail:
- immigration judges can get less protection than other federal workers
- Possible Reformed Models
- Policy proposals include:
- establishing a new system of immigration courts
- establishing Article I immigration courts
- strengthening tenure protections
- clarifying removal procedures
Conclusion
The mass firing of immigration judges is not merely a personnel issue. It raises deep questions about protections for the civil service, judicial independence, fairness in immigration adjudication and public trust.
Former judges are appealing their ousters, filing claims of discrimination and bringing their stories into the open. The result could help define not just their careers, but the form and fairness of immigration justice in the United States.
FAQs
How many immigration judges have been replaced?
Union estimates indicate at least 100 removals or resignations as of mid-2025, with reports up to 128 by September 2025.
What are judges appealing?
They contend that the dismissals were unjustified, in violation of civil service protections and potentially motivated by politics or discrimination.
What is the MSPB?
The Merit Systems Protection Board adjudicates federal employee disputes and is a major avenue for appeals.
Does this affect asylum seekers?
Potentially. Short tenures and the perception that it could be politicized might not ensure consistency and fairness in decisions.
Might this impact the structure of immigration courts?
Yes. That could include establishing a separated immigration court system that is independent of the Department of Justice.
What happens if appeals succeed?
Judges could be reinstated and back pay, benefit restoration and the possibility of precedent-setting protections would be on the table.
