DOJ Fires Immigrant-Defense Judges Amid Controversial Staffing Changes

(UNITED STATES) The Department of Justice has dismissed scores of immigration judges in 2025, with firings accelerating this summer and disproportionately hitting jurists who previously represented noncitizens, according to judges, union officials and public records. The removals, many delivered without explanation, have stirred alarm about politicization inside the immigration courts and the erosion of due process at a time when the case backlog has climbed past 3.7 million.

On February 14, 2025, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the arm of the Department of Justice that runs the immigration courts, abruptly terminated 20 immigration judges, including five assistant chief immigration judges and 13 newly appointed judges who had not yet been sworn in. By July, another 15 judges were notified they would be placed on leave and terminated by July 22, part of a wave that former and current court personnel say has singled out judges with immigrant defense backgrounds. Over the past year, more than 80 immigration judges have been fired, and total dismissals or forced resignations since the start of the Trump administration have topped 100.

NPR’s analysis found that judges with prior immigrant defense experience make up the largest share of those fired, while judges with backgrounds in immigration enforcement — including service at the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — are more likely to remain on the bench.

“Anyone who ever represented a noncitizen at any point in their lives—whether they also worked for DHS, whether they worked for ICE—that seems to be the indelible stain that got them fired,” said Judge Lilien in California.
The pattern has fed concerns about the Department of Justice reshaping the bench and the broader politicization of decisions that decide whether people can remain in the United States.

Some judges learned of their removal through terse emails or calls while on leave, with no stated cause. In Chicago, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jennifer Peyton received a three-sentence termination email over a holiday weekend while she was on vacation. She had strong performance reviews and believes her firing was retaliatory, especially after a directive limiting communications with members of Congress. Peyton’s case echoes accounts shared by other judges who say they were never told why they were let go and only later noticed that many of those forced out had previously represented asylum seekers or other noncitizens.

In Virginia, Judge Anam Petit described the sudden end to her tenure, saying she was left to infer the reasons.

“No one has told me why I was let go, you know? So this is all speculative. It has to be because no one has had that conversation with me.”
She added, “I know it’s not agency needs because they’re hiring other immigration judges.” Petit said she fears the overhaul amounts to a purge that will strip the courts of needed expertise and tilt decision-making toward speed rather than fairness.
“What this administration is doing is purging these judges and their intent is to replace them. Right now, they’re claiming they’re going to replace them with JAG lawyers out of the Department of Defense. Can you imagine lawyers that have no experience in immigration law, no experience in administrative law, and no experience being judges?”

The union representing immigration judges says the dismissals have not only been large in number but unusually opaque. The union reports that more than 80 judges have been fired without cause since January 20, 2025, and another 50 took early retirement or were involuntarily transferred. Union officials argue that the numbers point to a coordinated campaign to remove a particular profile of judge — those who built their careers representing immigrants — and to replace them with appointees with ties to immigration enforcement or the military. The Department of Justice, they say, has not offered credible explanations for why so many jurists were cut loose while the courts face a massive backlog and the administration promises faster case completions.

Former immigration judge Dana Leigh Marks, who served 35 years on the bench, said the design of the system leaves it vulnerable to political pressure.

“Because the immigration courts are in an executive branch agency which does have—rightfully—policy considerations, it skews the role of the immigration court system.”
That structure, with immigration judges employed by the Department of Justice rather than in an independent judiciary, has long been criticized by legal scholars and advocates who warn that policy priorities can seep into adjudication. This year’s removals have intensified those arguments and revived calls for Congress to consider placing the courts outside the executive branch.

The Department of Justice has announced the hiring of 11 new permanent judges with backgrounds in immigration enforcement, the military, and federal service. None appear to have prior immigration defense experience. Advocacy groups and the judges’ union argue that the administration is swapping out experienced, fair-minded jurists — including judges with years of direct courtroom practice in asylum and deportation defense — for politically vetted, relatively inexperienced appointees, including military lawyers with no immigration law expertise. The administration has said it intends to reduce the backlog and move cases more quickly. Critics counter that adding judges without specialized training in immigration law risks more errors, more appeals, and, ultimately, further delays.

The political stakes spilled into public view on Capitol Hill when Senator Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, admonished Attorney General Pam Bondi for what he called the “politicized firing of nonpartisan immigration judges.” In a letter, Durbin wrote:

“The Trump Administration has engaged in an unprecedented attack on due process and the rule of law, and the only plausible explanation for firing immigration judges and placing additional strain on overburdened immigration courts is a political one.”
Durbin highlighted that 15 judges were fired without cause and noted that many of the dismissed judges are exploring legal action. He requested detailed justifications for each firing and pressed the Department of Justice to explain how the removals would affect the immigration court backlog, which now exceeds 3.7 million cases.

Legal challenges are already reshaping the timeline. In March 2025, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued a stay order directing the Department of Justice to pause probationary terminations and to maintain employment for affected judges pending adjudication, confirming that the board viewed the firings as a coordinated removal action. The MSPB move temporarily protected some judges from immediate dismissal and signaled that the government’s process will face close scrutiny. Lawyers for several former judges said the board’s intervention could force the Department of Justice to disclose internal decision-making, including criteria used to identify judges for termination and communications between EOIR and political appointees.

Within the courtrooms and the communities they serve, the consequences are immediate. Fewer judges in already stretched courthouses mean longer waits for merits hearings, more continuances, and higher stakes for people who are detained while their cases are pending. Lawyers who represent asylum seekers say the churn on the bench makes outcomes less predictable and disrupts local practices that help cases move in an orderly way. Immigrant communities in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston depend on consistent dockets to resolve claims, but staff and scheduling changes have multiplied in recent months as judges were removed and replacements cycled in. The union says abrupt departures of assistant chief immigration judges have also strained supervision and training, especially in courts where newer judges rely on hands-on guidance to navigate complex asylum, withholding and Convention Against Torture claims.

The Department of Justice’s own staffing announcements underscore the rapid shift. New hires include former prosecutors, enforcement attorneys and military lawyers, part of a cohort of 11 permanent judges whose résumés emphasize government service. By contrast, judges who previously represented noncitizens — often in asylum, cancellation of removal, and humanitarian cases — appear far more likely to have been dismissed or sidelined this year. For former judges like Petit and Lilien, that pattern suggests a litmus test that treats defense work as disqualifying. The worry among current and former immigration judges is that the signal to the bench is unmistakable: grant rates, courtroom management choices, and professional history could be interpreted through a political lens.

Inside the immigration courts, due process concerns extend beyond who sits on the bench. Judges have described limits placed on communications with Congress and the public, and tighter controls over internal policy discussions. Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jennifer Peyton said a directive restricting outreach to lawmakers preceded her removal, and she fears the effect on transparency at a time when communities and elected officials are demanding answers about delays and outcomes. The union has called for clearer rules that protect judicial independence, including safeguards against performance measures that prioritize speed over careful review.

Advocates and some former officials say the pattern of firings, coupled with the profile of replacements, aligns with a broader push to speed deportations and limit court review. Immigrant rights groups argue that is at odds with the basic promise of immigration court: a fair hearing before an impartial adjudicator, especially in cases that can end in permanent separation from family or return to danger. Judges are tasked with weighing complex evidence and legal standards, often involving trauma and persecution. Critics warn that stacking the bench with enforcement-centric appointees, while shedding judges with defense backgrounds, risks narrowing the range of experience and perspectives that are vital to fair adjudication.

The caseload numbers compound those risks. With a backlog surpassing 3.7 million cases, even small disruptions in staffing ripple across dockets nationwide. When 20 judges, including five court managers, were terminated in one day in February, local calendars had to be reassigned and hundreds of individual hearings rescheduled. The 13 newly appointed judges who were dismissed before being sworn in would have added capacity in courts that are now relying on details and video hearings to keep up. July’s notices placing another 15 judges on leave and terminating them by July 22 prompted additional cancellations and postponements, according to attorneys who practice before EOIR.

The organizational structure of the immigration courts remains central to the debate. As an office within the Department of Justice, EOIR’s judges are classified as administrative adjudicators, not Article III judges with life tenure. That means they are hired, evaluated and, in many instances, dismissed by agency leadership. For years, professional associations have urged Congress to create an independent immigration court system. Supporters say independence would buffer immigration judges from shifting political priorities and establish clear due process safeguards. Opponents argue that moving the courts out of DOJ would be costly and slow to implement, and that stronger internal guardrails could address most concerns. The 2025 wave of firings has given new urgency to those arguments, adding concrete examples that lawmakers can point to as they weigh reforms.

For now, the practical questions are immediate: who will hear the cases, how quickly can new judges be trained, and what standards will guide their work? The Department of Justice says it is hiring and that the additions will help cut into the backlog. Judges like Petit warn that speed without expertise will backfire. Attorneys who represent both the government and respondents say that immigration law is intricate, with statutes, regulations and precedential decisions that change frequently. Bringing in judges without prior immigration law practice, they say, requires intensive training, mentorship, and time—resources in short supply as dockets swell.

Amid the turmoil, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has continued to publish announcements about new judge cohorts and court operations on its website. The agency’s public pages offer basic information about immigration courts and their locations, filing rules, and case processing changes, though they do not address individual personnel decisions. For official updates on immigration court operations, the Executive Office for Immigration Review provides current notices and policy materials. Attorneys and litigants say they are relying on those notices, along with court-specific standing orders, to navigate frequent scheduling updates tied to staffing changes.

The coming months will test whether the MSPB’s stay and ongoing legal challenges slow or reverse some of the removals, and whether Congress will seek detailed answers about how the Department of Justice selected judges for termination. The union’s tally—more than 80 judges fired without cause since January 20, 2025, plus another 50 early retirements or involuntary transfers—has already drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and civil society groups. Durbin’s warning that the firings amount to an “unprecedented attack on due process and the rule of law” crystallizes the political battle ahead.

For immigrants awaiting their day in court, the stakes are as personal as they come. Every vacancy or newly trained judge can mean the difference between a hearing this year and a hearing years from now. For the system, the controversy cuts to the core of what an immigration court should be: a neutral forum where the law is applied consistently, free from pressure to clear dockets at the expense of fairness. As Judge Lilien put it, the stain some judges carry is not misconduct or poor performance but the fact that, at some point, they stood at the defense table. Whether that becomes disqualifying in practice is now the question facing immigration judges, the Department of Justice and a court system under extraordinary strain.