The Trump administration’s decision to remove a group of immigration judges serving in New York City is drawing fresh scrutiny after a former judge filed a sweeping discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
The former judge, Tania Nemer of Ohio, says she was illegally pushed out less than a month into President Donald Trump’s second term, and that her case is part of a broader purge that now includes at least eight immigration judges recently dismissed from New York’s busy courts.
Her lawsuit alleges she was targeted because she is a woman, a dual U.S.–Lebanese citizen, and a former Democratic candidate for local office — and that the Justice Department is using its authority over immigration courts to sideline judges perceived as politically or ideologically out of step with the administration.
A lawsuit that goes beyond one judge
In a complaint filed in federal court, Nemer accuses the DOJ and Attorney General Pamela Bondi of violating federal civil rights law, including Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex and national origin. She also claims her firing was retaliation for her prior political activity and viewpoints, raising First Amendment concerns.
According to the lawsuit, Nemer was abruptly removed from the bench earlier this year with no meaningful explanation, after having been appointed as an immigration judge during the Biden administration. She first tried to challenge her firing internally through a DOJ Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office, but that complaint was dismissed.
The EEO decision, quoted in her suit, reportedly argued that Title VII protections do not constrain how the president removes immigration judges because of the constitutional powers granted to the executive branch. Nemer’s attorneys say that interpretation is both legally wrong and dangerous, contending that the government cannot carve out entire categories of employees from basic anti-discrimination rules.
The Justice Department has declined public comment on the specifics of the case, citing ongoing litigation.
New York judges removed amid historic court backlog
Nemer’s lawsuit landed just as the Trump administration removed a cluster of immigration judges in New York City, including at least seven judges based at 26 Federal Plaza — home to one of the country’s busiest immigration courts.
Among those let go was Amiena Khan, a former assistant chief immigration judge and a prominent figure in the judges’ professional association. Khan had previously spoken out when the administration tried to decertify the immigration judges’ union, a move critics saw as an effort to silence independent voices on the bench.
According to immigration lawyers and advocates, most of the judges recently removed in New York were women, and several had originally been appointed by Democratic presidents.
The firings come at a time when the nation’s immigration courts are overwhelmed. The system is facing a record backlog — more than 3 million cases are pending nationwide — even as more judges are pushed out than brought in. Since Trump returned to office, more than 100 of roughly 700 immigration judges have either been fired or forced out, while only a small number of permanent replacements have been confirmed.
Administration says it has the power — critics say it’s abuse
Unlike federal district judges, immigration judges are not part of the independent judicial branch. They are civil servants who work within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a component of the DOJ. That structure gives the attorney general — and ultimately the president — broad authority over hiring and firing.
The administration’s defenders argue that those powers are essential for carrying out the White House’s immigration agenda. They say Trump is entitled to install judges who will faithfully apply administration policies and remove those who resist.
But critics say there is a line between legitimate policy control and unlawful discrimination or political retaliation.
Immigrant-rights groups and the American Immigration Lawyers Association warn that mass removals of judges — especially those perceived as more independent or more sympathetic to immigrants’ claims — risk turning the courts into an extension of immigration enforcement, rather than neutral tribunals. They also point out that firing experienced judges while the system is already overwhelmed will likely extend delays for migrants seeking asylum or other relief.
A test of civil-rights and separation-of-powers protections
Legal experts say Nemer’s lawsuit could become a major test of how far civil-rights protections and civil-service rules restrain presidents who want to remake parts of the federal workforce.
If a court agrees with her argument that Title VII and the Constitution apply fully to immigration judges, it could limit presidents’ ability to fire them for reasons tied to politics, gender, or national origin — even if those judges are not part of the traditional judiciary. If the government prevails, it could reinforce a far more expansive view of presidential power over career officials.
For now, Nemer is asking for her job back, back pay, and a ruling that her firing was illegal. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the lawsuit on procedural and constitutional grounds, including arguments that the case should first be handled by administrative bodies that oversee federal employment disputes.
What’s next
As the case moves forward, lawyers expect the government to fight efforts to question senior officials — including the attorney general and possibly White House aides — about internal deliberations surrounding the firings, raising issues of executive privilege and separation of powers.
Meanwhile, the removal of eight New York City immigration judges has already reshaped day-to-day life at the city’s courts, where attorneys say they are seeing more postponed hearings and longer waits for decisions. For the thousands of immigrants whose futures depend on those decisions, the legal battle over one judge’s firing is tightly intertwined with a larger struggle over what it means to have a fair — and independent — immigration court system.
