Justice Department Fires 3 Immigration Judges After Pro-Palestine Rulings

(UNITED STATES) — The Justice Department fired six immigration judges on Friday, April 10, 2026, including two who had ruled in favor of pro-Palestine activists in closely watched deportation cases, according to Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security reports from April 2026.

Roopal Patel of the Boston Immigration Court and Nina Froes of the Chelmsford Immigration Court were among those terminated. Both were Biden-era appointees serving the final months of their two-year probationary periods.

The dismissals landed as the Trump administration pressed a wider overhaul of the immigration court system, tying personnel decisions to its push to cut the backlog and reverse Biden-era policy. The action also sharpened concerns raised by former judges and the National Association of Immigration Judges, which said the firings risked sending a message to judges who rule against the administration in removal cases.

A Justice Department official said on April 13, 2026, “All judges have a legal, ethical, and professional obligation to be impartial and neutral in adjudicating cases. If a judge violates that obligation by demonstrating a systematic bias in favor of or against either party, EOIR [Executive Office for Immigration Review] is obligated to take action to preserve the integrity of its system.”

Kathryn Mattingly, press secretary for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, added in a brief follow-up on April 13, 2026: “The Executive Office for Immigration Review does not comment on personnel matters.”

Daren K. Margolin, director of EOIR, had outlined the administration’s direction days earlier during an investiture ceremony for new judges. “EOIR remains committed to reducing the immigration court backlog and unwinding the policies of the Biden Administration that included a de facto open border and amnesty,” Margolin said on April 8, 2026.

The White House struck the same tone on April 10, 2026, declaring: “Era of Amnesty Is Over: President Trump Restores Rule of Law to Immigration Court.”

Patel drew notice on Jan. 29, 2026, when she ruled that DHS had failed to meet its burden of proof to remove Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University doctoral student. Öztürk had been targeted for removal after writing an op-ed critical of the university’s stance on the conflict in Gaza.

Froes issued a separate ruling in February 2026, dismissing deportation proceedings against Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student and Palestinian green card holder. Froes found that the government had not proven the authenticity of documents used to allege that Mahdawi was a “foreign policy risk.”

DHS has appealed both rulings to the Board of Immigration Appeals. On April 13, 2026, the BIA denied a similar appeal for activist Mahmoud Khalil and issued a final order of removal.

The administration’s power to remove immigration judges gained legal support in March 2026, when the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled that the attorney general may constitutionally fire immigration judges at will. The board classified them as “inferior officers” within the executive branch rather than independent members of the judiciary.

That decision altered the legal footing for a bench that already occupies an unusual place inside the federal government. Immigration judges hear cases that can decide whether a person remains in the United States, but they work under the Justice Department, not Article III courts.

The National Association of Immigration Judges said 113 immigration judges had been fired or forced out as of April 15, 2026. The administration has replaced them with more than 140 new permanent and temporary judges, many of them former DHS prosecutors or military lawyers.

Officials have presented those appointments as part of a staffing push tied to a large court backlog and a harder enforcement posture. [EOIR announced 15 immigration judges and 17 temporary immigration judges](https://www.justice.gov/eoir/pr/eoir-announces-15-immigration-judges-and-17-temporary-immigration-judges) on April 8, 2026, days before Patel and Froes were dismissed.

The personnel changes also fit within a broader policy shift aimed at foreign students and campus activism. A January 29, 2025 Executive Order targeted “alien students” for “antisemitic activity,” and USCIS put that policy into screening for immigration benefits.

The overlap between that order and the cases of Öztürk, Mahdawi and Khalil has made the latest firings especially sensitive inside the immigration court system. All three cases involved pro-Palestine activists or student figures accused by the government of conduct tied to foreign policy or campus protest activity.

Former judges and the union have said the terminations create a “chilling effect” on current adjudicators. Their concern is not abstract. Patel and Froes lost their jobs after issuing rulings that rejected DHS arguments in cases carrying political weight for the administration.

The DOJ has framed the matter as one of neutrality, not ideology. Its public statement pointed to “a systematic bias in favor of or against either party” as grounds for EOIR to act.

Still, the sequence of events has drawn attention because the judges identified in the reports handled cases involving pro-Palestine activists, a category that has become a focus of federal immigration enforcement and White House messaging. The firings came less than three months after Patel’s ruling and roughly two months after Froes dismissed the Mahdawi case.

Inside EOIR, the new direction has been visible in both public messaging and hiring. Margolin’s remarks paired backlog reduction with an explicit pledge to unwind Biden administration policies, tying docket management to a larger political turn in immigration enforcement.

The immigration court backlog has long stretched across administrations, but the current White House has cast the problem in ideological terms. Its April 10, 2026 declaration, “Era of Amnesty Is Over: President Trump Restores Rule of Law to Immigration Court,” placed the courts alongside the administration’s broader deportation agenda.

That agenda now reaches into personnel decisions that once drew less public scrutiny. Immigration judges, unlike life-tenured federal judges, can face direct pressure from executive branch management, and the March 2026 MSPB ruling strengthened the attorney general’s hand.

The result is a court system changing at speed. The union’s count of 113 judges fired or forced out, paired with more than 140 new permanent and temporary hires, amounts to a sweeping turnover on the bench in little more than a year.

EOIR has continued to publish public notices and announcements during the shift, including material in its [newsroom and press releases](https://www.justice.gov/eoir/notices-and-press-releases). USCIS has also posted policy and enforcement updates through its [newsroom](https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom), which the administration has used to explain changes tied to screening and benefits.

For the activists whose cases triggered some of the scrutiny, the legal fight has not ended with the judges’ initial rulings. DHS appeals remain pending in the Öztürk and Mahdawi matters, while Khalil’s case produced a final removal order from the BIA on April 13, 2026.

The firings of Patel and Froes have turned those individual cases into something larger inside the immigration courts: a test of how much independence judges retain when decisions displease the administration that employs them. With the DOJ citing impartiality, the White House promising to restore “Rule of Law,” and the bench undergoing rapid turnover, current immigration judges now work under a warning delivered not in guidance but in dismissals.