Fired Chicago Immigration Judge Sues Trump Administration Over Race, Sex, and Advocacy Bias

Carla Espinoza, once an immigration judge in Chicago, is taking on the Trump administration in federal court, accusing it of firing her for reasons that cut to the core of justice and fairness: her race, sex, and history defending immigrants. Espinoza’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, alleges that the Justice Department violated her First Amendment rights and federal equal opportunity laws when it terminated her last July, just shy of completing her two-year probationary period.

Espinoza was one of 20 probationary judges from a 38-judge cohort appointed in 2023 who were abruptly let go, part of a sweeping purge that saw nearly half the judges at the Chicago immigration court depart during the first year of Trump’s second term. This local upheaval mirrors a nationwide exodus of immigration judges, reflecting a broader Trump administration strategy to reshape immigration courts by removing judges perceived as insufficiently aligned with its agenda.

Her attorney, Kevin Owen, points out that Espinoza’s case is far from isolated. Several other judges across the country have filed similar lawsuits, claiming their dismissals were based on race, sex, nationality, or their prior work advocating for immigrants. “What they all have in common are characteristics, either from their prior employment or perceived political affiliation which do not align with this administration’s view of what an immigration judge should be,” Owen said.

Espinoza’s termination came amid a backdrop of troubling signals from the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which manages immigration courts. She and her colleagues received instructions that suggested decisions should reflect the Trump administration’s priorities rather than impartial justice. Internal memoranda from EOIR leadership accused immigration judges “of certain backgrounds” of receiving preferential treatment and labeled immigrant advocacy groups as extremist, painting a chilling picture of politicized interference.

Notably, Espinoza presided over the high-profile case of Ramon Morales Reyes, a Wisconsin immigrant wrongly accused of threatening then-President Trump. Despite pressure from then-DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin to keep Morales in custody, Espinoza set bond, a decision that likely drew administrative ire.

The lawsuit also challenges the Trump administration’s reliance on Article II of the Constitution to justify firing federal employees without cause, arguing this approach strips workers of their legal protections and threatens the rule of law. “The position the administration is taking in these cases should be concerning to everyone,” said Owen. “Because what they’re saying is, ‘We can decide, regardless of what the law says, that people have no rights.’”

This legal battle is unfolding amid a broader assault on the independence and integrity of the immigration court system, raising urgent questions about the future of fair adjudication for immigrants facing detention and deportation. Espinoza’s fight is a stark reminder that the Trump administration’s purge of immigration judges is not just about personnel—it is about undermining the very principles of justice and equal protection under the law.