SAN FRANCISCO – Former California immigration judge Kyra Lilien is suing the Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging her termination was a result of discriminatory practices targeting women, Democrats, and those with ties to immigrant communities. The lawsuit, filed against the DOJ and Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, highlights concerns about the politicization of the immigration court system under the Trump administration and its potential impact on due process for asylum seekers.

Lilien, who served in the San Francisco and Concord Immigration Courts, alleges that her termination violated her civil and First Amendment rights. Her claims extend beyond personal grievances, suggesting a pattern of bias within the DOJ. The lawsuit names nearly 30 other immigration judges who faced similar fates – termination or non-conversion from probationary periods – with a disproportionate number being women.

This lawsuit arrives amidst ongoing concerns about the independence of immigration courts. Appointed to the San Francisco Immigration Court on July 23, 2023, before being transferred to the Concord Immigration Court in February 2024, Lilien's nearly two-year tenure met or exceeded all performance standards. Despite this, she was denied a permanent appointment on July 11, 2025, a decision she believes was politically motivated.

The lawsuit points to controversial memoranda issued by Sirce Owen, then-acting EOIR director, which allegedly demonstrated hostility towards immigrant advocacy groups. These memos, coupled with Lilien's fluency in Spanish and association with the Hispanic community, further fuel her claim that she was unfairly targeted.

Lilien's case underscores a troubling trend: the erosion of impartiality within the immigration system. Asylum seekers deserve a fair hearing, free from political influence. The political affiliation of judges should not be a factor in their employment. A 34% asylum denial rate shows she did not automatically grant asylum.

This lawsuit raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the DOJ and its commitment to equal opportunity. It calls for greater transparency and accountability in the hiring and retention of immigration judges. The implications extend beyond Lilien's individual case, potentially impacting the lives of countless immigrants seeking refuge in the United States.

Furthermore, the high number of female judges allegedly affected by these terminations suggests a systemic issue of gender discrimination within the DOJ. This raises concerns about diversity and inclusion within the agency and its commitment to representing the communities it serves.

It also is important to note the context of the Trump administration's policies toward immigration. The focus on stricter border enforcement and limitations on asylum claims may have contributed to a climate of fear and political pressure within the immigration court system, potentially influencing hiring and retention decisions.

The lawsuit seeks to hold the DOJ accountable for its alleged discriminatory practices and to ensure that all immigration judges are treated fairly, regardless of their political affiliation, gender, or ethnicity. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of the immigration court system and its commitment to due process and equal justice under the law. The public has a right to know the extent of political influence within the immigration court system, and this lawsuit may help to bring these issues to light. Ultimately, a fair and impartial immigration system is crucial for protecting the rights of asylum seekers and upholding the values of justice and equality.

Fox News Digital reached out to Lilien's attorney, the DOJ, and the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) for comment. The case highlights the importance of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary and ensuring that all judges are free from political interference.