Listen to the article
Immigration Judge Fired After Granting Asylum at Odds with Administration Policy
A U.S. Army Reserve lawyer serving as a temporary federal immigration judge was dismissed from his position after just five weeks on the bench, the Associated Press has learned. Christopher Day, who began hearing cases in late October at the immigration court in Annandale, Virginia, was terminated around December 2, according to the National Association of Immigration Judges.
While the specific reasons for Day’s dismissal remain unclear—with both Day and Pentagon officials declining to comment and the Justice Department refusing to discuss personnel matters—federal data suggests his asylum rulings may have conflicted with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement objectives.
In November alone, Day granted asylum or other forms of relief allowing migrants to remain in the United States in six out of 11 cases he adjudicated, according to data analyzed by Mobile Pathways, a San Francisco-based nonprofit. Such favorable outcomes for asylum seekers have become increasingly rare under the current administration.
The Trump administration has been aggressively working to reduce a massive backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases by fundamentally restructuring the nation’s 75 immigration courts. As part of this effort, the administration has dismissed nearly 100 judges perceived as too liberal and relaxed qualifications for new judges. Recent recruitment advertisements explicitly refer to these positions as “Deportation Judge” roles.
To accelerate case processing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved the deployment of up to 600 military lawyers to hear asylum cases in September. Immigrant advocacy groups have criticized this move, arguing that it transforms judges from independent arbiters into instruments of the administration’s deportation agenda.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association has expressed particular concern about military officers lacking expertise in immigration law presiding over these complex cases. “It’s like asking cardiologists to perform hip replacements,” one critic noted. However, Pentagon and White House officials defend the initiative, arguing that expediting pending asylum claims benefits both the federal system and migrants waiting years for resolution.
Thus far, approximately 30 military personnel have been assigned to immigration courts, and most appear to be meeting the administration’s expectations. In November, military judges ordered removal or self-deportation in 90% of asylum cases they heard. Overall, these judges ordered removal 78% of the time, compared to 63% for civilian immigration judges.
Dana Leigh Marks, a retired immigration judge and former head of the National Association of Immigration Judges, noted that judges like Day whose rulings contradict these trends are especially vulnerable to dismissal. “It is hard to imagine someone being fired so quickly, after five weeks on the bench, unless it was for ideological reasons,” Marks said. “It’s especially unfair to military judges because they don’t have the same civil service protections and could face severe consequences for failing in their assignment.”
Military attorneys face unique challenges in this situation. While the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits retaliation against military lawyers for their actions in military tribunals, it remains unclear whether these protections extend to assignments in civilian immigration courts.
Brenner Fissell, a Villanova University law professor who helps run the Orders Project, which provides counsel to military personnel who believe they’re being asked to carry out illegal orders, explained that even minor personnel actions could damage an officer’s career prospects. “The process can be the punishment,” Fissell noted, pointing out that appealing such decisions is complicated, lengthy, and potentially costly.
Day, a graduate of American University law school and a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps, has worked in various federal government positions over the past two decades, most recently as an attorney for the Federal Communications Commission during the Biden administration.
Unlike federal judges with lifetime appointments, immigration judges are Justice Department employees who can be dismissed by the attorney general with relatively few constraints—a point emphasized during a two-week training course for new judges in October, according to an anonymous source who attended these private sessions.
To encourage participation in this initiative, the Pentagon has offered military officers incentives such as choice assignments when volunteering for immigration court duty. However, an internal JAG Corps email indicated that if volunteer numbers fell short, officers might face mandatory six-month relocations to fulfill the mandate.
The case highlights growing tensions between traditional judicial independence and the administration’s push to expedite asylum proceedings as part of its broader immigration enforcement agenda.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
Troubling news. Immigration judges must be able to uphold the law without fear of retaliation from the administration. Dismissing a judge for granting asylum is a concerning abuse of power.
While the administration wants to reduce the asylum backlog, undermining the judiciary’s role is troubling. Judges must be free to make lawful decisions without fear of retaliation.
Agreed, the swift firing after only a month raises serious questions. The government should not be interfering with the impartiality of immigration courts.
While the administration wants to reduce the asylum backlog, this case highlights the dangers of political interference in the judicial process. Judges should be free to make lawful decisions without fear of repercussions.
This is a concerning development that threatens the independence of the immigration courts. Judges should be able to apply the law fairly without political pressure from the administration.
Absolutely, the high asylum grant rate seems irrelevant – the judge was following the law. Dismissing him for that sets a dangerous precedent.
Interesting case – it seems the immigration judge was dismissed for granting asylum in a majority of cases, which goes against the administration’s crackdown. This raises concerns about political interference in the judicial process.
I agree, the swift dismissal after only 5 weeks on the bench raises red flags. Immigration judges should be able to make impartial rulings without fear of repercussions.
This highlights the politicization of immigration enforcement under the current administration. Dismissing a judge for granting asylum in line with the law is a concerning abuse of power.
Exactly, the administration seems intent on pushing its agenda even if it means overriding the proper judicial process. This is a dangerous precedent that threatens the rule of law.
The high asylum grant rate may have been justified, but the administration appears to have fired the judge for not falling in line with its policy objectives. This undermines the integrity of the immigration system.