She received the highest possible ratings. Then she was told her position would end.
In the long tension between judicial independence and executive authority, a California immigration judge named Kyra Lilien has stepped forward to contest what she believes was her politically motivated removal from the federal bench. Having served nearly two years with the highest available performance ratings, Lilien alleges the Department of Justice ended her appointment not for any failure of duty, but because of her party registration, her gender, her age, and her ties to immigrant communities. Her lawsuit, naming nearly thirty similarly affected judges, asks a question as old as democratic governance itself: where does legitimate administration end and the weaponization of power begin.
- A judge with a spotless record was quietly pushed out — not for poor performance, but allegedly for who she is and what she believes.
- Nearly thirty immigration judges across the country appear to have been terminated or denied permanent status in what the lawsuit describes as a pattern overwhelmingly targeting women.
- Internal DOJ memos allegedly branded immigrant advocacy organizations as 'extremist leftist' groups, signaling a hostile ideological climate for judges with certain backgrounds.
- Lilien's legal team is now pressing the courts to determine whether the executive branch can lawfully reshape the federal judiciary along political and demographic lines.
- The case is landing at the intersection of civil rights law, First Amendment protections, and the contested boundaries of presidential power over federal appointments.
Kyra Lilien spent nearly two years as an immigration judge, earning the highest possible performance ratings across both fiscal years she served. She worked first at the San Francisco Immigration Court, then transferred to Concord. By every measurable standard, she was doing her job well. In July 2025, she was told her probationary period would not convert to permanent status, and her position would end.
Her lawsuit, filed in 2026 against the DOJ and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, argues the termination had nothing to do with her record. She alleges she was let go because she is a registered Democrat, speaks fluent Spanish, has ties to immigrant-rights organizations, and is a woman over 40 — all in violation of her civil and First Amendment rights.
The filing is notably broad. It identifies nearly thirty other immigration judges who were terminated or denied permanent conversion around the same time, fourteen of them from the same two courts where Lilien served. The pattern the lawsuit describes is stark: those pushed out were disproportionately women.
Adding weight to the allegations, the suit points to internal DOJ memoranda from early 2025 in which acting EOIR director Sirce Owen allegedly characterized immigrant advocacy groups as 'extremist leftist' organizations and criticized Biden-era hiring practices. The lawsuit frames these communications as evidence of institutional hostility toward judges with immigrant-rights backgrounds, women, and those who might be labeled diversity hires.
The case arrives at a moment when the Trump administration has been actively reshaping federal agencies, and it raises questions that extend well beyond Lilien's individual career. Can a judge be denied a permanent appointment because of her political registration or community affiliations? Will the government's justifications hold up under legal scrutiny? Her case is likely one of several that will test the outer limits of executive power over the federal judiciary in the months ahead.
Kyra Lilien served as an immigration judge for nearly two years. She received the highest possible performance ratings. She met or exceeded every standard. Then, in July 2025, she was told her probationary period would not become permanent, and her position would end.
Now she is suing the Department of Justice, alleging that her termination was not about her performance at all. According to the lawsuit filed in 2026, Lilien was fired because she is a registered Democrat, because she speaks Spanish fluently, because of her ties to immigrant-rights organizations, and because she is a woman over 40. Her attorney, Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law in Maryland, argues that the government's actions were unlawful and violated her civil rights and First Amendment protections.
The case names the DOJ and Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants. The 14-page filing is not narrow. It identifies nearly 30 other immigration judges from across the country who were either terminated or denied permanent conversion around the same time as Lilien. Fourteen of those judges worked in the same two courts where Lilien served—the San Francisco Immigration Court, where she started in July 2023, and the Concord Immigration Court, where she was transferred in February 2024. The pattern, the lawsuit argues, is striking: the judges who were not converted or were fired were overwhelmingly women.
Lilien's own record was exemplary. She received satisfactory assessments—the highest rating available—in her probationary reports for both fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Data from TRAC Immigration shows she denied 34 percent of asylum claims brought before her, a figure consistent with judicial discretion in immigration cases. There was nothing in her performance that would justify non-renewal under normal circumstances.
The lawsuit also points to internal communications from DOJ leadership as evidence of animus. Sirce Owen, who was serving as acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review in early 2025, issued memoranda that the suit characterizes as hostile toward immigrant advocacy groups and certain hiring practices. In one memo, Owen allegedly described these organizations as "extremist leftist" groups that promote illegal immigration and attempt to undermine immigration courts. In another, he criticized appointment practices from the Biden administration. Together, the lawsuit argues, these memos revealed management's hostility toward hiring individuals with immigrant-rights backgrounds, women, ethnic minorities, and anyone who might be labeled a "DEI" hire.
The timing matters. Lilien received her non-renewal notice on July 11, 2025, after the Trump administration had taken office and begun reshaping federal agencies. The lawsuit frames her termination not as an isolated personnel decision but as part of a broader effort to reshape the immigration judiciary in ways that reflect particular political views and exclude judges with certain backgrounds or affiliations.
What happens next is uncertain. The case raises fundamental questions about whether federal judges can be removed or denied permanent appointment based on their political registration, their community ties, or their demographic characteristics. It also raises questions about whether the DOJ's stated reasons for non-renewal—if any are offered in defense—will withstand legal scrutiny. Lilien's case is one of many that will likely test the boundaries of executive power over the federal judiciary in the coming months.
Citas Notables
The actions taken against her were impermissible and unlawful.— Kevin Owen, Lilien's attorney
She didn't fit their mold.— Kevin Owen, Lilien's attorney, on the DOJ's reasoning
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that she was a registered Democrat? Judges are supposed to be impartial.
The lawsuit isn't saying judges should be partisan. It's saying that her party registration was used as a reason to fire her—that the government made a personnel decision based on her political affiliation, which is illegal under federal law.
But she was still in her probationary period, right? Don't they have more flexibility to let people go then?
They do have more flexibility. But the law still prohibits firing someone for discriminatory reasons—for being a woman, for her race or ethnicity, for her political views, or for her associations. Probationary status doesn't erase those protections.
What's the significance of the other 30 judges?
It suggests this wasn't one bad decision about one person. If nearly 30 judges were terminated or denied conversion at roughly the same time, and most of them were women, that pattern becomes evidence of a policy or practice, not just individual merit-based choices.
The memos from the DOJ director—are those smoking gun evidence?
They're significant because they show what leadership was thinking. If the director is calling immigrant-rights groups "extremist" and criticizing hiring practices that include women and minorities, and then judges with those exact backgrounds are fired, it's harder for the government to claim the terminations were purely performance-based.
What does she want to happen?
Likely reinstatement, back pay, and a declaration that the terminations were unlawful. But more broadly, the case is about whether the executive branch can reshape the judiciary by removing judges whose politics or backgrounds don't align with the administration's views.