Terminated Immigration Judges to Speak on Purge at Nov 13 Press Club

(WASHINGTON, DC) Three recently terminated immigration judges and the head of their union will appear at the National Press Club on November 13, 2025, at 10:00 am to condemn what they describe as mass firings and warn of deepening threats to due process in the nation’s immigration courts. Judges Anam Petit and Emmett Soper are slated to speak alongside President Biggs, who leads the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ/IFPTE Judicial Council 2), at the National Press Club Headliners event in Washington, an unusually public protest by sitting and recently ousted jurists that underscores the scale and speed of a purge they say is reshaping the bench.

Since January 20, 2025, at least 139 immigration judges have been fired or otherwise removed from their positions under the Trump administration, according to union sources and public statements by affected judges. The union has called the removals “sweeping and unprecedented,” arguing that

“removing judges en masse in this way deeply disrupts court operations”

and undermines due process. The firings and resignations have contributed to a court backlog that reached nearly four million cases by mid-2025, according to the union, piling new strain on a system already under pressure.

Judge Petit, a scheduled panelist, has framed the stakes in stark terms.

“What is lost when immigration judges are taken off the bench is the guarantee of a fair and impartial hearing for every person who comes before the court,”

she has said, arguing that the rapid turnover erodes the core promise of neutral adjudication. The union and fired judges say the government has been replacing seasoned jurists with “military attorneys that have no experience in Immigration or administrative law,” a shift they argue weakens the system’s expertise and risks errors with life-altering consequences.

The dismissals have touched courts from Houston to San Francisco and Chicago, sometimes arriving with little warning and minimal explanation. Judge Jennifer Peyton, a former Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in Chicago, described learning she had been terminated via an email sent over a holiday weekend while she was on vacation. She said the message contained only three sentences and offered no stated cause.

“My performance reviews had been consistently strong, including recognition from EOIR leadership,”

she said, adding that she believes her removal was retaliatory after she resisted a directive to route congressional inquiries through headquarters. Peyton’s account has ricocheted through court circles as a vivid example of what judges and union leaders say is a growing disregard for basic employment norms and institutional independence.

In Texas, five judges were fired in early 2025. Among them were Brandon Jaroch and Noelle Sharp of Houston, both of whom confirmed their removal but declined further comment. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Judge Ila Deiss, a veteran with long service, and Judge Kyra Lilien, then on probationary status, were dismissed in July 2025. Deiss’s firing was widely viewed within the courts as politically motivated, according to colleagues and union officials who pointed to her record of strong performance as evidence that the decisions were driven by factors beyond case management or competency.

The pattern included mass termination events that blindsided courtrooms and litigants alike. On February 14, 2025, 20 immigration judges were terminated by email without public explanation, including seven Assistant Chief Immigration Judges and 13 newly hired judges. Court staff and attorneys said calendars were thrown into confusion as cases had to be reassigned, hearings were postponed, and immigrant families and their lawyers were left scrambling. Then in July, 15 judges across multiple jurisdictions received notices that they would be placed on leave and terminated by July 22, with some given only days of advance warning and little formal process. By the union’s count, over 100 judges have been fired or resigned under the current restructuring, the largest turnover in the history of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that oversees immigration courts.

For union leaders, the upcoming National Press Club appearance is meant to put faces and names to a bureaucratic upheaval that has largely unfolded out of public view. President Biggs, who will speak at the event, has argued that the firings are not only destabilizing the bench, but also eroding public trust. Calling the dismissals “sweeping and unprecedented,” Biggs said

“removing judges en masse in this way deeply disrupts court operations,”

adding that uncertainty over who will preside has cascading effects: witnesses change travel plans, detainees stay in custody longer, and lawyers recalibrate strategy midstream.

Immigration judges decide whether people can stay in the United States or must leave, often adjudicating asylum claims that hinge on credibility findings and detailed country evidence. The work requires specialized knowledge that takes years to build—another reason, the union argues, that the removal of experienced immigration judges is especially damaging. The union and terminated judges say the government’s replacement strategy—bringing in “military attorneys that have no experience in Immigration or administrative law”—shows a preference for control over competence, a charge the administration has not publicly addressed in detail. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the courts, did not immediately respond to questions in prior public reporting on the firings; its role and responsibilities are outlined on the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review website.

The event at the National Press Club will be an unusual moment of public testimony by jurists who typically avoid the spotlight. Judges Petit and Soper are expected to describe the lack of cause cited for their terminations and the abrupt, impersonal manner of notification; union leadership is set to outline the broader implications for judicial independence and due process. Organizers say the discussion will also address the practical effects of the turnover, from rescheduled merits hearings to the ripple effects on detention and legal representation. The National Press Club Headliners event is open to credentialed media and club members, with registration required.

For immigrants with pending cases, the reshuffling of immigration judges can mean months of additional waiting, especially when a judge is removed mid-case and a new one must relearn the file. Lawyers in several jurisdictions have reported sudden continuances after learning a presiding judge had been terminated or placed on leave. When judges disappear without explanation, advocates say, it feeds uncertainty among people who rely on the courts to determine protection claims and family unity. That uncertainty is magnified in detention settings, where a delayed hearing can mean prolonged confinement.

Inside the courts, the February and July waves of terminations sent shockwaves through management ranks, as even Assistant Chief Immigration Judges—who help set policy and manage caseloads—were swept up. Judges and court staff describe calendars being reconstructed in a matter of hours and clerks working through long lists of cases to alert counsel. Attorneys representing asylum seekers and other respondents say their clients were bewildered by sudden changes, with some believing a change in judge could alter the outcome of a close case. The union contends that this churn undermines a core premise of the system: consistent, impartial adjudication regardless of political winds.

The Chicago account offered by Judge Peyton has become a touchstone for critics who view the firings as driven by ideology rather than performance. Peyton said the three-sentence email announcing her termination arrived over a holiday weekend while she was on vacation, without a stated cause.

“My performance reviews had been consistently strong, including recognition from EOIR leadership,”

she said, linking her removal to resistance against a directive to route congressional inquiries through headquarters. For judges who prize independence, she argued, that instruction intruded on communication with elected officials responsible for oversight, and her pushback brought professional risk.

In Houston, the firings of Brandon Jaroch and Noelle Sharp in early 2025 landed in one of the system’s busiest dockets, where immigration judges routinely manage heavy caseloads and high-stakes asylum claims. Both confirmed their removal but declined further comment, illustrating a tension in the current moment: many judges fear speaking out while they explore appeals or other remedies, or because they remain bound by confidentiality rules even after termination. In the Bay Area, the dismissal of Judge Ila Deiss, a long-serving jurist with a reputation for careful case management, and Judge Kyra Lilien, then still probationary, added to the sense that experience did not insulate judges from removal.

Union officials say the broader pattern points to a restructuring that aims to consolidate control over the bench rather than improve outcomes. Alongside the “sweeping and unprecedented” characterization, President Biggs has continued to assert that

“removing judges en masse in this way deeply disrupts court operations,”

stressing that the disruption has concrete effects measured in delayed hearings, backlogged dockets, and families caught in limbo. Judge Petit’s warning—

“What is lost when immigration judges are taken off the bench is the guarantee of a fair and impartial hearing for every person who comes before the court”

—has become a rallying line for advocates who argue that the legitimacy of the immigration court system rests on public confidence in its neutrality.

The scale of the turnover is exceptional. The union estimates that over 100 judges have been fired or resigned since January, while its broader tally of at least 139 removals underscores the historic nature of the purge. On the ground, that has meant abrupt changes in courtrooms around the country, where scheduled trials were pulled from calendars and new assignments made without explanation to litigants. When 20 judges, including seven Assistant Chief Immigration Judges and 13 newly hired jurists, were terminated by email on February 14, 2025, court insiders say it knotted operations for weeks. The later wave in July, with 15 judges notified they would be placed on leave and terminated by July 22, compounded the uncertainty.

The National Press Club forum offers a platform for the judges and their union to press for transparency and safeguards. Speakers are expected to urge reforms that would protect the independence of immigration judges from political pressure and clarify the grounds for disciplinary action or termination. The union has argued that greater transparency—on hiring standards, removal criteria, and the qualifications of new appointees—is essential to restore confidence. The criticism of replacing experienced immigration judges with “military attorneys that have no experience in Immigration or administrative law” reflects a wider concern about funneling sensitive adjudication to less experienced hands as caseloads and legal complexity rise.

For people facing removal, the consequences are immediate. The backlog nearing four million cases by mid-2025 means longer waits for decisions on asylum, withholding of removal, and family-based relief. Each discontinuity on the bench, the union says, has a ripple effect: a merits hearing moves months out, a detained case loses its spot, a witness must be re-subpoenaed. Lawyers note that credibility determinations—a central feature of many asylum cases—can hinge on continuity and a judge’s familiarity with the record. Against that backdrop, the mass firings have raised alarms not only among immigration judges but also among practitioners, law professors, and advocacy groups who see due process as increasingly fragile.

The National Press Club event is likely to draw heavy attendance from credentialed media and members who have followed the rapid turnover and mounting docket pressures. For the ousted judges, it will be a rare chance to speak publicly about their experiences and the system they fear is being reshaped without sufficient scrutiny. For the union, led by President Biggs, it is an opportunity to put on the record its charge that the firings are “sweeping and unprecedented” and that

“removing judges en masse in this way deeply disrupts court operations.”

And for immigrants with cases pinned to calendars, it marks another moment where the uncertainty of who sits on the bench merges with the uncertainty of what comes next.

As the panel convenes on November 13, 2025, at 10:00 am, the message promised from the stage will be blunt: the removal of immigration judges at this scale, the union and its members say, threatens the promise of a fair day in court.

“What is lost when immigration judges are taken off the bench is the guarantee of a fair and impartial hearing for every person who comes before the court,”

Judge Petit has said. The question before the National Press Club—and the broader public—is how the system restores that guarantee when the bench itself is in flux.