A California immigration judge removed by the Trump administration is now suing the United States Department of Justice, claiming she was dismissed not because of performance issues, but because she was a registered Democrat with ties to immigrant-rights advocacy groups.
The lawsuit, filed by former immigration judge Kyra Lilien, is the latest flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s sweeping effort to reshape the federal bureaucracy and restore tougher immigration enforcement after years of open-border policies under the Biden administration.
Lilien’s 14-page complaint names both the DOJ and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants. In the suit, she alleges that she was not retained beyond her probationary period because she is a Democrat, a woman over 40, fluent in Spanish, and connected to Hispanic community organizations.
Her legal team argues that the administration unfairly targeted her because she allegedly did not fit the ideological mold preferred by Trump officials now overseeing immigration courts.
But conservatives see the matter very differently.
For years, Republicans have warned that America’s immigration system — including immigration courts — became increasingly stacked with activists sympathetic to illegal immigrants and aligned with left-wing advocacy groups. Trump officials have repeatedly argued that immigration judges should enforce immigration law impartially, not act as political advocates from the bench.
Lilien was originally appointed to the San Francisco Immigration Court in 2023 before later being transferred to Concord in 2024. She served nearly two years, the standard probationary period before judges receive permanent appointments under DOJ policy.
According to the lawsuit, Lilien received satisfactory performance reviews and denied roughly 34% of asylum claims during her tenure.
Still, in July 2025, she was informed that her probationary appointment would not be converted into a permanent role.
Her lawsuit claims the decision reflects broader hostility by the Trump administration toward judges connected to immigrant-rights groups, diversity initiatives, and Biden-era hiring priorities. The filing also references internal memoranda from former acting Executive Office for Immigration Review Director Sirce Owen criticizing what the administration viewed as ideological activism within the immigration court system.
According to the complaint, Owen described some immigrant advocacy organizations as “extremist leftist organizations” that push policies undermining immigration enforcement.
To many conservatives, that criticism rings true.
After years of historic illegal immigration, overwhelmed border facilities, and backlogged asylum claims, Trump officials have made no secret of their belief that the immigration system became politicized under former President Joe Biden. The administration has prioritized installing judges and officials who they believe will enforce immigration law as written rather than operate from activist sympathies.
Lilien’s lawsuit also includes the names of roughly 30 other immigration judges nationwide who were either dismissed or not retained during probationary periods. Fourteen reportedly came from the San Francisco and Concord court systems alone.
Her attorneys argue the dismissals disproportionately affected women and individuals associated with immigrant communities. But critics point out that probationary periods exist precisely so administrations can evaluate whether employees are a proper fit for positions involving sensitive national policy priorities.
The case now sets up another legal and political battle over who controls America’s immigration system — elected officials accountable to voters, or entrenched bureaucracies shaped by ideological activism.
For Trump supporters, the answer is simple.
After years of border chaos and record illegal immigration, they believe the administration has every right to ensure immigration courts are staffed by judges focused on enforcing the law — not advancing progressive causes from the bench.
