On December 2, 2025, the Trump administration fired eight immigration judges working out of 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan, a move that quickly drew national attention and set off a heated debate about the future of the U.S. immigration court system. The firings came on the same day that Tania Nemer, a former immigration judge from Ohio, filed a high-profile lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleging she was wrongfully dismissed by the administration due to her gender, national origin, and political affiliation.
Nemer’s complaint, which landed just hours before the Manhattan judges were let go, claims her termination on February 5, 2025, was based on the fact that she is a woman, a dual citizen of Lebanon, and had previously run for local office as a Democrat. According to her lawsuit, the Justice Department’s actions violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and her First Amendment right to engage in political activity. Nemer’s attorneys, Nathaniel Zelinsky and James Eisenmann, minced no words in a joint statement, saying, “Title VII is unquestionably constitutional. The government cannot discriminate against its employees. Full stop. We look forward to pursuing Tania’s case in court.” (Reuters)
For many observers, the timing of the firings and the lawsuit seemed more than coincidental. According to the New York Post, eight immigration judges in Manhattan lost their jobs just hours after Nemer’s legal filing became public. The judges, who all worked at the busy 26 Federal Plaza courthouse, were part of a broader wave of terminations and resignations that have swept through the federal immigration judiciary in recent months. The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) estimates that about 200 judges have either resigned or been dismissed as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s campaign to trim inefficiencies and reduce spending by encouraging federal employees to leave their jobs. Of those, roughly 100 were fired outright.
The firings come at a time when the federal immigration court system is already under extraordinary strain. Syracuse University’s TRAC Reports reveals that there is now a backlog of 3.4 million immigration cases pending in the system—a record high that has left judges, lawyers, and immigrants themselves scrambling for answers. The American Immigration Lawyers Association echoed these concerns, noting that more than 100 immigration judges out of about 700 have been fired or pushed out since the start of Trump’s return to office in January 2025. This, they argue, has depleted the number of judges available to handle a surge in cases, just as the administration has ramped up arrests and deportations.
Adding to the confusion, the War Department announced back in September 2025 that it planned to send 600 military lawyers to serve temporarily as immigration judges in an effort to address the backlog. Yet, as of December 2, only 25 of those military lawyers have completed the necessary training and begun hearing cases, according to the NAIJ. Meanwhile, despite Congress creating 800 new federal immigration judiciary jobs under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, just 11 new permanent judges have been installed. The gap between authorized positions and actual hires has only fueled criticism from both sides of the political aisle.
Nemer’s suit shines a spotlight on the legal and constitutional questions at the heart of the administration’s actions. In her filing, she alleges that her firing was not only discriminatory but also a violation of her right to participate in the political process. She claims she was dismissed in part because she had previously run for office as a Democrat—a fact that, if true, could have broad implications for the rights of federal employees. Nemer began her judgeship in 2023, during President Joe Biden’s term, and says she was on the bench when her immediate supervisor interrupted her to inform her she had been terminated, effective immediately, without any stated reason.
The Justice Department, for its part, has argued that the president and attorney general have the legal authority to remove immigration judges at will. In its response to Nemer’s earlier Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, the department stated that the firing was a “lawful exercise” of that authority. The head of the Justice Department’s EEO office, in a September 25 decision, asserted that no statute—including Title VII—provides immigration judges with protection from at-will removal by the president. This interpretation is rooted in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the president broad powers to appoint and remove inferior officers of the federal government.
Still, Nemer’s legal team rejects this position outright. They argue that the protections of Title VII, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and national origin, apply to all federal employees, immigration judges included. Her attorneys contend that allowing the administration to fire judges based on discriminatory criteria sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the independence of the judiciary. “The government cannot discriminate against its employees. Full stop,” they reiterated in their statement.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuit, according to Reuters. However, the firings have sparked outcry from both immigration advocates and some members of Congress, who warn that the loss of experienced judges will only worsen the court backlog and erode confidence in the fairness of the system. Critics argue that the administration’s focus on efficiency and cost-cutting has come at the expense of due process and judicial independence. Supporters of the firings, meanwhile, maintain that the president must have the flexibility to manage the federal workforce and remove judges who are not aligned with administration priorities.
The broader context is hard to ignore. The Trump administration’s approach to immigration has long been a lightning rod for controversy, with policies that have tightened enforcement, increased deportations, and placed new strains on the court system. The recent wave of judicial firings, set against the backdrop of a historic case backlog and a surge in new immigration cases, has only intensified the debate over how best to manage the nation’s borders and uphold the rule of law.
For Tania Nemer and the eight Manhattan judges who lost their jobs this week, the stakes are personal as well as political. Nemer is seeking reinstatement, arguing that her dismissal was not only unjust but also unconstitutional. As her lawsuit moves forward, it is likely to test the limits of presidential authority, the protections afforded to federal employees, and the future of the immigration court system itself.
With the nation watching closely, the outcome of Nemer’s case—and the broader shakeup in the immigration judiciary—could have lasting implications for how justice is administered at one of the most contentious frontiers of American public life.
