Listen to the article
Former Immigration Judge Files Lawsuit Against DOJ Alleging Discriminatory Termination
A California immigration judge is taking legal action against the Department of Justice, claiming she was fired due to her political affiliation, gender, age, and connections to immigrant-rights organizations.
Kyra Lilien filed a 14-page lawsuit naming the DOJ and Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants after she was not retained beyond her standard two-year probationary period. Despite receiving the highest possible ratings during her tenure, Lilien was informed on July 11, 2025, that her position would not be converted to a permanent appointment.
“She didn’t fit their mold,” said Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law in Maryland, one of Lilien’s attorneys, in an interview with FOX San Francisco. “The actions taken against her were impermissible and unlawful.”
The lawsuit claims violations of Lilien’s civil and First Amendment rights, alleging she was targeted for being a registered Democrat, a woman over 40, fluent in Spanish, and having connections to the Hispanic community and immigrant advocacy groups.
Lilien began her service at the San Francisco Immigration Court on July 23, 2023, before transferring to the Concord Immigration Court in February 2024. According to the lawsuit, she consistently met or exceeded performance standards throughout her employment, receiving satisfactory assessments—the highest possible rating—in her probationary period reports for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
Court records indicate Lilien denied 34% of asylum claims that came before her, according to data from TRAC Immigration, suggesting she maintained a balanced approach to her judicial duties.
The case highlights broader concerns about personnel changes within the immigration court system. The lawsuit identifies nearly 30 other immigration judges from across the country who were either terminated or not converted from probationary status under similar circumstances, including 14 from the Concord and San Francisco immigration courts alone. According to the filing, those affected were “overwhelmingly female.”
The legal challenge comes amid significant changes in immigration enforcement and policy under the Trump administration. The lawsuit specifically references controversial memoranda allegedly issued by Sirce Owen, who was serving as the acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in early 2025.
According to the filing, Owen characterized immigrant advocacy groups as “extremist leftist organizations” that promote illegal immigration and attempt to undermine immigration courts. Another memo allegedly criticized the appointment practices under the previous Biden administration.
Lilien’s lawsuit argues these memoranda revealed management’s hostility toward hiring individuals with immigrants’ rights backgrounds, women, ethnic minorities, and others who might be considered “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) hires.
The case touches on ongoing tensions regarding federal workforce policies, particularly following the administration’s efforts to reshape the federal judiciary and immigration system. Earlier legal challenges have already emerged regarding the dismissal of probationary federal employees and DEI workers seeking to block executive orders affecting their positions.
Immigration courts have been under increasing pressure in recent years as they attempt to address a substantial backlog of cases amid shifting policy priorities and heightened attention to border security and asylum processes.
Neither the Department of Justice nor its Executive Office for Immigration Review has publicly responded to the allegations as of this report.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
22 Comments
As an immigration judge, Lilien’s background and connections could be seen as relevant to her role. However, termination decisions should be based on merit, not demographic factors. The DOJ’s reasoning deserves scrutiny.
Well said. Ensuring impartiality and professionalism in the immigration courts is crucial, while also promoting diversity and inclusion on the bench.
Concerning allegations of political bias and discrimination in the DOJ’s termination decision. I hope the legal process can shed light on the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.
Agreed, the allegations of age, gender, and political affiliation discrimination are quite serious and warrant a thorough investigation.
This case highlights the ongoing debate around political influence in government agencies. Ensuring the independence and integrity of the justice system is vital for upholding the rule of law.
Absolutely. Maintaining a nonpartisan, merit-based civil service is crucial for public confidence in the administration of justice.
This case underscores the importance of robust oversight and accountability mechanisms for government agencies. Allegations of wrongful dismissal warrant a thorough, impartial investigation.
Absolutely. Transparency and due process are essential to maintain public trust in the justice system, especially for sensitive personnel matters.
The allegations of political discrimination are concerning. Regardless of one’s views on immigration policy, the justice system must remain independent and free from partisan influence.
I agree. Government agencies should make personnel decisions based on merit and qualifications, not political ideology or affiliation.
As an immigration judge, Lilien’s background and expertise could be valuable assets. However, the DOJ’s termination decision deserves close scrutiny to ensure it was not tainted by improper considerations.
Agreed. The court should carefully examine the DOJ’s rationale and decision-making process to determine if any unlawful discrimination occurred.
I’m curious to learn more about the specific reasons cited by the DOJ for not retaining Lilien, beyond the allegations in the lawsuit. Transparency around personnel decisions is important, especially for public sector roles.
Yes, the DOJ should provide a clear explanation for their decision, given Lilien’s positive performance reviews. Dismissals based on protected characteristics raise serious concerns.
As an immigration judge, Lilien’s background and connections to immigrant advocacy groups could be seen as relevant to her role. However, termination decisions should be based on merit and lawful criteria, not political or demographic factors.
Good point. Professionalism and impartiality are crucial for immigration judges, regardless of personal affiliations.
The lawsuit’s allegations of discrimination are troubling, if true. I hope the court can determine the facts and hold the DOJ accountable if wrongdoing is found.
Agreed. Unlawful termination based on protected characteristics like gender, age, or political affiliation would be a serious abuse of power.
This case raises important questions about the DOJ’s hiring and firing practices. Transparency and accountability are essential to maintain public trust in the justice system.
Well said. Unlawful dismissal on the basis of protected characteristics like gender, age, or political views would be a serious breach of ethical standards.
As an immigration judge, Lilien’s expertise and experience in the field could be valuable. Her termination raises questions about the DOJ’s personnel practices and commitment to diversity on the bench.
Good point. Diverse perspectives and backgrounds can strengthen the immigration justice system. The DOJ should ensure its decisions are fair and equitable.