logo
Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back

Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back

CHICAGO (AP) — Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back.
More than 50 immigration judges — from senior leaders to new appointees — have been fired since Donald Trump assumed the presidency for the second time. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted.
Their suspected reasons include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration and a courthouse tour with the Senate's No. 2 Democrat.
'I cared about my job and was really good at it,' Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge told The Associated Press this week. 'That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired.'
Peyton, who received the notice while on a July Fourth family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court, greeting outside observers.
She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she'll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted.
Peyton's theories about why she was fired include appearing on a 'bureaucrat watchdog list' of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also questions a courthouse tour she gave to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois in June.
Durbin blasted Peyton's termination as an 'abuse of power,' saying he's visited before as part of his duties as a publicly-elected official.
The nation's immigration courts — with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases — have become a key focus of Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges.
Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench.
'The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future,' said Matt Biggs, the union's president.
Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she'd be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
'I am personally committed to my career. We're not political appointees,' she told AP. 'I'm entitled to a reason.'
She believes the firings have disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, including people with Hispanic-sounding surnames like hers. She plans to take legal action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has also shifted focus under Trump.
'There's a very strong pattern of discriminatory factors,' she said.
Espinoza thinks another reason could be her decision to release a Mexican immigrant falsely accused of threatening to assassinate Trump. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a threatening letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Morales Reyes was actually framed by a man who had previously attacked him.
Espinoza said she felt pressure with public scrutiny, media coverage and Noem's statements about Morales Reyes, which weren't corrected or removed from social media.
'It's hard to silence the noise and just do your job fairly when there's so much distraction,' she said. 'I think I did. And I stand by my decision as having been a fair one to release an individual who I believe was twice victimized.'
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Justice Department that oversees the immigration courts, declined to comment on the firings through an agency spokesperson.
Peyton said she isn't sure that working as an immigration judge is still her dream job.
'It's important that everyone in our country knows what's happening in our immigration courts,' she said. 'The Department of Justice that I joined in 2016 is not the same one now.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy

Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____

What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking
What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking

President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands Sunday over a trade agreement touted as being largely concluded, but days later, there are still plenty of disagreements about exactly what is in the pact. Perhaps nowhere is the divide more stark than in the summaries published by each side — one from the White House and another from the European Commission. They depart in at least five areas, both in terms of the deal and the firmness of the commitments. In just one example, the White House summary touts "historic structural reforms and strategic commitments," while the Europeans call the handshake deal "not legally binding," with more negotiations to come. Trump quipped Sunday that a deal would be "the end of it" and that it would be a number of years "before we have to even discuss it again." That is unlikely to be the case, which even Trump's aides acknowledge. The difference is likely to come to a head quickly as negotiations continue between the US and Europe over legally binding text and as trade watchers wait for a formal joint statement on the deal that the teams still hope to unveil this week. A range of areas of disagreement Clarity on at least one headline area is clear: an agreement for 15% tariffs on nearly all EU goods, including autos, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals, that will be exempt from separate Trump plans there. But the divides are evident once you go deeper. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that a lot remains to be worked out when he told CNBC on Tuesday that "there's plenty of horse trading still to do," even as he argued that the "fundamentals" are set. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Trump has also already set a pattern of fuzzy initial details on his deals, including a recent pact with Japan, but a comparison of the two documents summarizing the Europe deal underlines differences on many of the key aspects. On the issue of new investments by Europe — $750 billion in US energy and additional corporate investments of $600 billion — the summary from the US side described them as firm commitments. The European language is much less solid, saying it "intends to procure" additional energy and that European companies "have expressed interest" in additional investments. More differences are seen on whether the deal will mean European markets are "totally open," as Trump has said. The European summary of provisions around fish says they will allow "limited quantities" and only "certain non-sensitive" agricultural products. Another highly touted part of the agreement from the US side is a provision for Europe to purchase military equipment. As Trump said on Sunday, "They're going to be purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment." That part isn't even mentioned in the European summary. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices

Protesters praised for peaceful demonstration against asylum-seeker housing plan
Protesters praised for peaceful demonstration against asylum-seeker housing plan

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Protesters praised for peaceful demonstration against asylum-seeker housing plan

Former home secretary Suella Braverman has praised protesters for peacefully demonstrating against plans to house asylum seekers in flats above a town centre shop. More than 1,000 people are estimated to have attended the protest in Waterlooville, Hampshire, on Wednesday evening against the proposal to house 35 people at the property in London Road. Posting on X, Ms Braverman, who is the Conservative MP for Fareham and Waterlooville, said: 'Very proud of the people of Waterlooville tonight. To the thousands of local people who peacefully protested, you speak for millions. 'Zero offences, arrests and no disorder. You're not far-right. You just love our country and are willing to stand up for it. Thank you. 'To the Home Office and Havant Borough Council, we say: no. Thank you to the police for keeping everyone safe.' The demonstration came after the MP organised a petition to Havant Borough Council against the plans. The local authority said it had not been initially consulted on the proposals after communication difficulties with Clearsprings, a procurement company employed by the Home Office for the project. Leader of Havant Borough Council, Labour councillor Phil Munday stated: 'Having received the petition from Suella Braverman, I am yet again concerned with her repeated use of inaccurate language in her supporting letter which only seeks to exacerbate fear in the hearts and minds of our concerned residents. 'Repeated reference to illegal immigrants and unwanted men flames fears when we know as a matter of fact all users of the proposed accommodation are supported asylum seekers. 'Furthermore, the proposed use – as I discussed in depth with the Home Office personally – is that the accommodation would be used by a mix of families and individuals. 'This is a marked difference to the quite frankly offensive remarks that the proposed use of the site is to solely house dangerous single men of detriment to the borough.' In a letter to Yvette Cooper, the Labour Secretary of State, Ms Braverman described the proposal as 'insulting to local people'. She wrote: 'This plan will dump further pressure on policing, healthcare and public infrastructure, all while ignoring the legitimate concerns of residents who have been left voiceless. 'Our town has undergone a transformation and become a welcoming place to work, invest, shop, dine and play. 'Decisions such as yours will once again make our town centres no-go zones for the patriotic, common-sense majority.' The MP also stated on her website: 'This site, in the centre of our town, is utterly inappropriate for migrant accommodation. It must be stopped.' The consultation ends on Friday August 1, after which the Home Office will decide whether to approve the plans. A Home Office spokeswoman previously said it was in 'active dialogue' with the local authority and added: 'We are working to fairly disperse asylum seekers across the country, consulting closely with local authorities and listening to local concerns.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store