Immigration judge in California sues DOJ alleging discrimination based on politics and age

Kyra Lilien’s lawsuit overview

Kyra Lilien, a former immigration judge in California, filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Justice on May 1 in federal court in San Francisco. She alleges discrimination tied to her political affiliation as a registered Democrat, her age over 40, her gender, and her immigrant-rights background.

The case names the Department of Justice and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants and challenges her removal from the bench. Lilien served at the San Francisco and Concord immigration courts after being appointed during the Biden administration, and she claims the DOJ violated her First Amendment rights and federal employment protections during her probationary period.

Her professional background

Kyra S. Lilien was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023 at the San Francisco Immigration Court. She later served at the Concord Immigration Court, where TRAC Immigration data shows she denied 34.2% of asylum claims and granted relief in 65.8% of cases reviewed for fiscal years 2020 through the first 11 months of 2025.

Lilien’s lawsuit says she was fluent in Spanish and had professional ties to immigrant-rights work before joining the bench. Reporting on the complaint says she received satisfactory assessments, the highest available rating, had 96% of her motions adjudicated on time, and was recommended for permanent appointment before her probationary term was not extended.

Termination circumstances

On July 11, 2025, Lilien received a brief email stating the attorney general declined to extend her term under Article II powers. This came just weeks before her expected permanent appointment after probation. She was told to surrender her laptop and badge immediately.

The notification arrived while she presided over an active hearing, forcing her to leave mid-session. Lilien describes this as disruptive to judicial proceedings and due process for immigrants. The abrupt action underscores her claims of unfair treatment.

Alleged political discrimination

Lilien alleges that her registered Democratic affiliation, immigrant-rights background, Spanish fluency, and associations with Hispanic communities were factors in the DOJ’s decision not to retain her. Her complaint also points to EOIR memoranda under acting director Sirce Owen that, according to the lawsuit, described some immigrant-advocacy organizations as “extremist leftist organizations” that promoted illegal immigration and undermined immigration courts.

The lawsuit argues that the Trump administration targeted immigration judges whose backgrounds did not align with its preferred political profile. Lilien claims those actions violated her First Amendment rights and federal employment protections, but the court has not yet ruled on those allegations.

Age and gender claims

The lawsuit invokes the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, noting Lilien’s age over 40 as a factor. It highlights that terminated judges were overwhelmingly female during this period. Gender bias compounded other alleged prejudices.

Lilien’s attorney, Kevin Owen, states she did not fit the expected profile under new policies. Over 100 immigration judges faced removal since 2025, raising patterns of selective enforcement. Her case pushes back against perceived overreach.

Little-known fact: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against you based on your sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.

Other affected judges

Lilien’s lawsuit names nearly 30 other immigration judges who were either fired or not converted from probationary status, including 14 from the Concord and San Francisco immigration courts. The filing uses those examples to argue that the DOJ’s actions followed a broader pattern rather than an isolated personnel decision.

According to reporting on the complaint, the affected judges were described as overwhelmingly female, and Lilien alleges that judges with immigrant-rights backgrounds or political profiles disfavored by the administration were targeted. The case raises questions about how far executive-branch authority extends over immigration judges, who work within the Department of Justice rather than the Article III judiciary.

 Legal violations cited

The complaint alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the First Amendment. Lilien argues that the DOJ disregarded her strong performance record, satisfactory evaluations, and recommendation for permanent appointment when it declined to extend her probationary term.

The suit seeks reinstatement, back pay, damages, attorney’s fees, and a court ruling that the DOJ’s actions were unlawful. Her First Amendment claim centers on the allegation that the government retaliated against her because of her political affiliation and associations, but that issue remains unresolved in court.

DOJ’s stated rationale

According to reporting on the lawsuit, the DOJ cited the attorney general’s Article II authority when declining to extend Lilien’s probationary term.

The broader removal effort has affected more than 100 immigration judges since 2025, according to ABC7. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has defended DOJ actions by saying the department is looking to replace immigration judges it believes are ruling too slowly or not applying the law properly.

Performance record details

TRAC Immigration data shows Lilien denied 34.2% of asylum claims reviewed for fiscal years 2020 through the first 11 months of 2025, compared with a 42.2% denial rate at the Concord Immigration Court and 58.9% nationwide during the same period. Her lawsuit says she received satisfactory assessments, the highest available rating, and that 96% of her motions were adjudicated on time.

Reporting on the complaint says Lilien had not been disciplined before she was told her probationary term would not be extended. Her strong evaluations, timeliness record, and recommendation for permanent appointment are central to her argument that the stated rationale for her removal was pretextual.

Broader context

Since 2025, the DOJ has fired or declined to retain numerous immigration judges, including judges who were still in probationary periods. The personnel changes followed EOIR and DOJ policy shifts that criticized some Biden-era practices and emphasized speed, impartiality, and enforcement priorities inside immigration courts.

Lilien’s lawsuit cites EOIR memoranda that she says reflected hostility toward immigrant-advocacy backgrounds and contributed to her non-retention. The case comes as immigration courts face a backlog of about 3.7 million cases, and AP reporting says the Trump administration is seeking to remake the courts as part of its deportation push.

Little-known fact: At least four prosecutors involved in cases related to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act under the previous administration were fired in April 2026.

Attorney’s perspective

Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law, one of Lilien’s attorneys, has said Lilien did not fit the administration’s preferred profile and that the actions taken against her were impermissible and unlawful. Reporting on the lawsuit says her complaint frames the firing as part of a broader pattern involving judges with protected traits or immigrant-rights backgrounds.

Lilien has also described learning of her removal while she was on the record in the middle of a hearing. Her legal team argues that the abrupt dismissal disrupted proceedings and reflects the broader due process concerns raised by the case.

Court and implications

Filed in federal court in San Francisco, Lilien’s case challenges the DOJ’s use of executive authority in decisions involving immigration judges. The lawsuit argues that federal employment statutes and constitutional protections still apply even when the government invokes Article II authority over executive-branch personnel.

The case could affect how probationary immigration judges challenge removals, non-conversions, or alleged retaliation tied to political affiliation, age, gender, or professional background. It also draws attention to California immigration court operations at a time when Bay Area courts have faced judge losses and shifting caseloads.

As a Supreme Court case examines immigration-related economic impact, Virginia’s redistricting dispute is escalating with new court filings after claims of a “rigged” vote.

Current status

As of May 2026, Lilien v. Blanche et al. is pending in federal court, with public docket information showing the case was filed on May 1, 2026. Lilien seeks reinstatement, back pay, damages, attorney’s fees, and a court declaration that the DOJ’s actions violated federal law and the Constitution.

The lawsuit joins other legal and public challenges to recent DOJ actions involving immigration judges. Its outcome could influence how probationary immigration judges challenge removals or non-conversions tied to alleged discrimination, retaliation, or executive-branch personnel authority.

As an immigration judge sues the DOJ over alleged discrimination, the Supreme Court is also weighing a case tied to billions in economic impact from Haitian immigrants.

Do you think this lawsuit will change how judges are treated? Like if you have a take and share your thoughts in the comments.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Irish immigrants saved Rhode Island’s failing canal in 1824
• 12 welcoming U.S. cities where immigrants can find support
• Zohran Mamdani proposes free childcare for undocumented immigrants