Trump Administration Ousts Dozens of Immigration Judges in Major Judicial Shakeup

In a quiet but powerful move, the federal government has removed nearly 50 immigration judges from their positions as part of a sweeping effort to overhaul the U.S. immigration system. The judges received short, three-line emails notifying them of their termination—without fanfare, without public announcements, and without detailed explanations.

The move signals a dramatic shift under President Donald Trump’s renewed leadership, aiming to eliminate what administration officials describe as activist judicial behavior that has long delayed or obstructed enforcement of immigration law. The Biden-era backlog of over three million immigration cases still clogs the system, and the Trump administration says it’s time for accountability—starting in the courtroom.

A Quiet Notice, A Loud Message
One of the dismissed judges, Jennifer Peyton, an Obama-era appointee who had served since 2016, said she received the email while on vacation with her family. Despite having no disciplinary record and reportedly strong performance reviews, she found herself abruptly removed. Peyton believes political motives were at play, pointing to her previous interactions with Democratic lawmakers and criticism from conservative watchdogs.

Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called her dismissal an “abuse of power,” linking it to broader efforts to purge the system of ideologically unfavorable officials. However, Trump-aligned observers view the firings not as abuses—but as long-overdue corrections.

“This isn’t retaliation,” said one source familiar with the changes. “It’s reform. The immigration courts have operated with virtually no consequences for far too long.”

Judges Push Back

The National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing many of the ousted officials, says approximately 50 judges have been dismissed outright, while another 50 have been transferred, reassigned, or quietly pressured into early retirement. Its president, Matt Biggs, warned that remaining judges feel “threatened” and uncertain about their job security.

But critics argue that those feelings are precisely what a long-stagnant system needs. For years, they say, immigration judges have too often operated with political bias—blocking deportations and undermining Homeland Security enforcement efforts.

Allegations of Bias or Accountability?
In Chicago, former judge Carla Espinoza claims her contract was not renewed due to her gender and Hispanic background. She argues that a key case, in which she released a Mexican national falsely accused of threatening the president, was handled fairly. However, that individual had been flagged by Homeland Security, and her decision was viewed by some as recklessly dismissive.

Observers suggest that such dismissals are not rooted in race or gender, but in a pattern of decisions that conflicted with the administration’s enforcement priorities. “When a judge actively counters national security concerns raised by federal agencies, they shouldn’t be surprised by consequences,” said a former DOJ official.

A Whistleblower Speaks
One of the most high-profile responses came from Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney known for defending Trump-era immigration policies. Reuveni says he was fired after refusing to label a deported Salvadoran as a terrorist—a label he claims was unsupported by the case facts. He has since become a whistleblower, accusing DOJ leadership of manipulating court processes and sidelining judicial review in favor of expedited deportations.

Reuveni argues that officials are overriding judges to push cases through the system faster than ever before. But where he sees manipulation, supporters of the current approach see long-overdue efficiency.

“Millions of Americans have grown frustrated with a broken, bureaucratic system,” said one immigration advocate. “They’re not interested in more delays. They want results.”

A Changing Judicial Landscape
One key figure in the effort to reshape the immigration judiciary is Emil Bove, a former DOJ attorney recently confirmed to a federal appeals court by a Republican-controlled Senate. Bove, now in a position of significant legal influence, is expected to help reinforce the administration’s hardline stance on immigration enforcement.

Democrats, once comfortable using the courts to stall or reverse immigration orders, now find themselves losing influence in a system rapidly being reshaped. The judges being dismissed, some say, were part of a long-standing culture of leniency and political advocacy that often stood in conflict with immigration law.

System Reset or Political Purge?
To critics of the administration, the wave of firings is evidence of a political purge—an effort to install ideological loyalty rather than legal fairness. But to supporters, it’s about restoring integrity and discipline to a judicial system that has long lacked oversight.

“These judges are not being punished for doing their jobs—they’re being held accountable for not doing them,” said one official.

Some former judges are trying to rally public sympathy, framing their dismissals as unjustified and politically motivated. But the Trump administration remains focused on its broader goal: dismantling what it sees as a “rubber-stamp” culture that favors leniency over enforcement.

As former DOJ attorney Reuveni said in a recent interview, “One voice can be ignored. But a chorus… that can no longer be silenced.”

Indeed, the chorus now gaining volume isn’t from inside the courtrooms—it’s from the American public demanding a system that works. And for the Trump administration, this sweeping reset of immigration judges is just the beginning.