Kyra Lilien, an immigration judge in California, filed a 14-page lawsuit against the Department of Justice and Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche on Monday, alleging she was wrongfully terminated because she is a registered Democrat, a woman over the age of 40, fluent in Spanish and affiliated with immigrant-rights groups.
Lilien was appointed to the San Francisco Immigration Court on July 23, 2023, before being transferred to the Concord Immigration Court in February 2024. She served nearly two years, which is the standard probationary period immigration judges serve under Justice Department policy before their appointments are typically converted to permanent roles. The lawsuit names approximately 30 other immigration judges from around the country who were either fired or not converted from probationary periods during the same timeframe, including 14 from the Concord and San Francisco immigration courts.
Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law in Maryland, one of Lilien's attorneys, told FOX San Francisco that she did not fit their mold and that the actions taken against her were impermissible and unlawful. The lawsuit alleges her termination violated her civil and First Amendment rights.
What the Right Is Saying
The Trump administration has defended its personnel decisions across federal agencies, arguing that probationary employees serve at-will and that performance concerns justified non-conversion decisions. The DOJ has not publicly commented on pending litigation.
Conservative commentators have argued that immigration courts have long faced backlogs and efficiency concerns, suggesting new leadership is entitled to reshape the judiciary's composition during a new administration. Some have noted that Article II authority gives presidents broader discretion over certain executive branch appointments compared to career civil service positions.
The notice Lilien received on July 11, 2025, stated that "the attorney general had decided not to extend her term or convert it to a permanent appointment pursuant to Article II of the Constitution," framing the decision within constitutional powers rather than personnel policy. Administration officials have pointed to this language in defending similar terminations.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have pointed to cases like Lilien's as evidence of politically motivated dismissals within federal immigration courts. Representatives from immigrant-rights organizations, including some named in the lawsuit's allegations against acting EOIR director Sirce Owen, have argued that the terminations represent a coordinated effort to remove judges with backgrounds sympathetic to asylum seekers.
Senator Alex Padilla of California said in a statement that "federal employees should never face termination based on their political beliefs or demographic characteristics." Immigration advocacy groups including the American Immigration Lawyers Association have called for investigations into whether employment decisions at EOIR violated federal civil service protections.
The lawsuit cites memoranda allegedly issued by Sirce Owen, then-acting EOIR director, in early 2025 that characterized immigrant-advocacy organizations as "extremist leftist organizations" and criticized hiring practices under the Biden administration. Lilien's filing states these documents together "laid bare management's hostility toward hiring individuals with immigrants' rights backgrounds, women, ethnic minorities and others who may be considered 'DEI' hires."
What the Numbers Show
According to the lawsuit, Lilien received satisfactory assessments — the highest possible rating — in her probationary period reports for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Data from TRAC Immigration shows she denied 34% of asylum claims brought before her during her tenure.
The filing states that immigration judges who were not converted or were terminated around the same time as Lilien "were overwhelmingly female." Approximately 30 immigration judges nationwide experienced similar outcomes, with 14 from California courts alone identified in the lawsuit.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. blocked mass dismissals of probationary federal employees in April 2025, though that ruling addressed broader workforce reductions and its applicability to immigration court appointments remains subject to legal interpretation.
The Bottom Line
The lawsuit adds to a growing body of litigation challenging Trump administration employment decisions as improperly motivated by political affiliation or demographic characteristics. A federal judge previously blocked mass dismissals of probationary workers; this case may test similar protections for immigration judges.
If the case proceeds, courts will need to determine whether Article II authority shields personnel decisions from discrimination claims, or whether existing civil rights laws apply regardless of appointment structure. The outcome could affect how future administrations handle staffing at immigration courts, which process hundreds of thousands of cases annually.