When the email came in, she was in the middle of a hearing and on the record. Three sentences. Give up your laptop and badge right away. Go. Kyra Lilien, who had worked as an immigration judge at the Concord Immigration Court in the Bay Area, found out she had been fired in the same manner that a startling number of federal employees have discovered similar news in recent years: suddenly, without warning, and in language that hardly qualified as a communication.
The timing of her termination—less than two weeks before she would have been granted tenure, the professional protection that would have made removal much more difficult—was what made her position so startling. The Department of Justice has not provided an explanation.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kyra Lilien — former immigration judge, Concord Immigration Court, Bay Area, California |
| Defendant | U.S. Department of Justice |
| Timing of Firing | Terminated less than two weeks before she would have received tenure — reportedly while actively presiding over a hearing |
| Termination Notice | Three-line email instructing her to turn in her laptop and badge immediately and leave — received while on the record in court |
| Allegations | Discrimination based on gender, age, and association with immigrant rights groups; political targeting of judges who leaned toward granting asylum |
| Broader Pattern | More than 100 immigration judges fired by the DOJ since 2025 — many without stated reason |
| Constitutional Question | Whether the President has authority under Article II to fire immigration judges — disputed by legal experts; federal employment statutes may apply |
| Expert Commentary | Bill Hing (USF Law): terminations targeted judges who granted asylum; Jeremiah Johnson (NAIJ): remaining judges “terrified,” working late hours under pressure |
| EOIR Response | Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to comment on litigation-related matters |
| Likely Destination | Case filed in Northern District of California — legal experts say the core constitutional question may ultimately reach the Supreme Court |
Lilien has filed a federal lawsuit contesting her dismissal, claiming that her age, gender, political beliefs, and affiliations with immigrant rights organizations were the reasons for her dismissal. Since 2025, the DOJ has fired over 100 immigration judges; legal experts claim that this rate of judicial removal is unprecedented in the immigration courts’ recent history. Her case is one of several that have accumulated.
Around the same time, a number of other Concord court justices were apparently fired without cause. If there is a pattern, which the circumstantial evidence suggests may be, it indicates a conscious attempt to change the ideological makeup of the immigration judiciary by eventually replacing judges who were thought to be too inclined to grant asylum claims with others.
According to Bill Hing, a professor of law and migration studies at the University of San Francisco, the judges who were dismissed were primarily inclined to grant asylum. He contests the legitimacy of the firings, claiming that the president is not permitted by Article II of the Constitution to remove immigration judges, who are federal employees shielded from political removal by civil service laws passed by Congress.
The administration’s stance, which holds that the president has discretion over every employee in the executive branch due to the unified executive, is a broad interpretation of executive authority that goes beyond what most constitutional scholars have previously supported. Hing and others believe that this interpretation will not withstand judicial scrutiny if it is put to the test.
Jeremiah Johnson, executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, who was removed from his San Francisco job last year, used words that are hard to write off as hyperbole when describing the environment among judges who are still on the bench. He said judges are afraid.
They are managing growing caseloads, working through lunch, staying up late, and keeping an eye on things all the while. It’s not an abstract pressure. It is the everyday experience of individuals attempting to enforce the law in a setting where decisions that anger the administration could result in a quick three-line email while they are being recorded.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review has declined to comment on Lilien’s case, which is pending in the Northern District of California. Johnson thinks the Supreme Court will finally address the fundamental constitutional question of how much power the executive has to remove federal employees who are protected by civil service rules.
The response will be significant outside of immigration courts if it gets to that stage. It will establish the boundaries of the president’s authority over the federal workforce in ways that affect all executive branch agencies and protected employees.
