An immigration judge in California has taken legal action against the Justice Department, claiming she was unfairly dismissed due to her political affiliation as a registered Democrat and her connections with immigrant rights groups. In her lawsuit, Kyra Lilien names the DOJ and acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants. The case unfolds against a backdrop of significant political shifts in immigration policy, highlighting issues of diversity and employment practices within the judiciary.
Lilien asserts that various factors contributed to her dismissal, including her age, gender, fluency in Spanish, and ties to the Hispanic community. Her attorney, Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law, argues that the reasons behind her termination do not align with fair employment practices. According to Owen, Lilien was not retained because she “didn’t fit their mold,” suggesting that the Trump administration preferred judges who aligned more with its political stance.
The 14-page lawsuit details Lilien’s claims that her rights were violated, including her civil and First Amendment rights. While she was appointed to serve at the San Francisco Immigration Court in 2023, her tenure was cut short when she was moved to the Concord Immigration Court in February 2024—a shift that typically precedes a permanent appointment. Lilien’s nearly two-year service aligns with the standard probationary period for immigration judges, a time when they demonstrate their qualifications for a permanent role.
The lawsuit also underscores that Lilien is not alone in her experience. It includes the names of 30 other immigration judges who faced similar fates—either dismissed or not granted permanent appointments after their probation. Notably, 14 of these judges are linked to the Concord and San Francisco immigration court systems. The statistics reveal a troubling trend, as most of the judges dismissed around the same time as Lilien were women.
During her probation, Lilien reportedly met or exceeded performance expectations, earning satisfactory assessments—the highest ratings possible—across her performance reviews for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Despite this strong performance, she denied 34% of asylum claims during her time as a judge, as cited by data from TRAC Immigration.
On July 11, 2025, Lilien received notice that her probation would not transition to a permanent position. The lawsuit points to actions taken by Sirce Owen, the acting EOIR director during her time, who issued several memoranda perceived as hostile toward immigrant advocacy groups. These documents characterized such organizations as “extremist leftist organizations” and criticized former President Joe Biden’s hiring practices. The lawsuit posits that these statements reveal an overarching hostility within the administration toward individuals with immigrant rights backgrounds and diverse demographics.
Overall, Lilien’s case shines a light on broader themes of political influence, employment discrimination, and the dynamics of judicial integrity in immigration decision-making. As the landscape of immigration law continues to evolve, this lawsuit could set important precedents regarding the rights of judges and the hiring practices of the Justice Department.
"*" indicates required fields
