A California immigration judge terminated by the Trump administration has filed a federal lawsuit alleging her dismissal was based on political affiliation and discriminatory factors rather than job performance.
Kyra Lilien, who served at the San Francisco Immigration Court, submitted a 14-page complaint naming the Department of Justice and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants. The lawsuit contends that Lilien was not retained past her probationary period due to several protected characteristics and associations.
According to the legal filing, Lilien attributes her termination to being a registered Democrat, her affiliations with immigrant-rights organizations, her status as a woman over 40 years of age, her fluency in Spanish, and her connections to the Hispanic community. The complaint asserts these factors constituted violations of her civil rights and First Amendment protections.
Lilien began her appointment at the San Francisco Immigration Court on July 23 of last year. Immigration judges serve in a unique capacity within the federal system, operating under the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which falls under Department of Justice jurisdiction rather than the judicial branch.
Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law in Maryland, representing Lilien in this matter, characterized the termination as both impermissible and unlawful. Owen stated that his client did not conform to what he described as a particular mold sought by the administration, and that the actions taken against her violated established legal protections.
The case emerges amid broader scrutiny of personnel decisions within the Trump administration. A federal judge recently blocked the administration’s mass dismissals of probationary federal employees, raising questions about the scope and legality of such terminations during probationary periods.
Probationary periods for federal employees typically allow agencies greater flexibility in personnel decisions, as probationary workers do not possess the same civil service protections as permanent employees. However, even probationary employees retain certain constitutional protections, including safeguards against discrimination based on political affiliation, age, gender, and exercise of First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit’s claims center on whether the administration’s decision to terminate Lilien crossed legal boundaries by considering factors that federal employment law expressly prohibits. If proven, such considerations would constitute violations regardless of an employee’s probationary status.
Immigration courts have faced significant attention during this administration as enforcement priorities have shifted. The judges who preside over these proceedings hold substantial authority in determining asylum claims and deportation cases, making their appointments and retention matters of considerable policy significance.
The Justice Department has not yet issued a public response to the specific allegations contained in Lilien’s lawsuit. The case will proceed through federal court, where discovery may reveal the documented reasons for her termination and whether impermissible factors influenced the decision.
This legal challenge represents one of several confrontations between terminated federal employees and the administration over personnel decisions made during probationary periods.
Related: Professor Loses Leadership Position After Comparing Zionism to Cancer
