{
  "id": 3756016,
  "title": "Todd Blanche Battles Fired Immigration Judges in Court",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/27/todd-blanche-battles-fired-immigration-judges-in-court",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-08-27T14:37:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Newsweek",
    "slug": "newsweek",
    "url": "https://www.newsweek.com/todd-blanche-battles-fired-immigration-judges-in-court-12374159"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Attorney General Todd Blanche has responded to two of the three lawsuits filed against the Trump administration by former immigration judges who claim their removals were discriminatory. Over 100 immigration judges have been dismissed since President Donald Trump took office in January of the previous year. The administration has been aiming to overhaul the immigration court system, with immigration enforcement and mass deportations as top priorities. Department of Justice attorneys filed motions this week seeking to dismiss lawsuits brought by two of the fired judges, arguing their cases lack merit and that the attorney general can remove immigration judges at will. While the Department of Homeland Security handles mass deportations, immigration courts fall under the Department of Justice's jurisdiction.\n\nBlanche's filings come amid a legal battle over the administration's treatment of immigration judges, who play a crucial role in asylum claims and deportation cases. Critics argue the removals undermine judicial independence, while Blanche maintains the department is combating judges who are ruling too slowly or not adhering to the law to reduce the backlog of pending cases. In their lawsuits, the three judges stated that after serving two-year probationary terms, they were not appointed to permanent positions. They noted that per DOJ policy, immigration judges are initially appointed for two years, after which their appointments are typically converted to permanent ones. The complaints allege that many of the terminated judges were people of color or had a history of representing immigrants.\n\nOne lawsuit, brought by Carla Espinoza, alleges she was not converted to a permanent position in Chicago in July 2023, despite meeting performance standards. Espinoza, who has a Hispanic surname and a history of representing immigrants, claims the DOJ discriminated against her based on her race and sex. DOJ attorneys argued that her complaint failed to establish a plausible link between her termination and her protected characteristics, and that immigration judges can be removed at will by the attorney general under Article II of the Constitution.\n\nAnother lawsuit, filed by former California immigration judge Kyra Lilien, alleges she was not converted to a permanent position in July of the previous year, despite exceeding performance standards. Lilien alleges she was discriminated against based on her age, sex, political affiliation, association with Hispanic individuals, and prior work with an immigrants' rights organization. DOJ attorneys dismissed her case, arguing it was filled with conclusory statements and speculation, and that similarly situated judges outside her protected groups were treated differently.",
  "summary": "Department of Justice attorneys filed motions to dismiss lawsuits brought by two of the fired judges, arguing they lack merit.",
  "key_points": [
    "DOJ argues dismissed judges' cases lack merit and attorney general can remove judges at will.",
    "Three fired judges claim discrimination based on race, age, and political affiliation."
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}