EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The year 2025 has seen an unprecedented and transformative restructuring of the United States immigration judiciary. Across the country, the Trump administration has fired, forced out, or declined to renew more than one hundred immigration judges. Nowhere has this purge been more extensive or more consequential than in New York City, home to the nation’s largest immigration court and the jurisdiction with the heaviest asylum docket. 

This article examines the firing of at least ten New York–based immigration judges in 2025, including seven removed simultaneously on December 1, 2025, and three others dismissed earlier in the year: Olivia L. Cassin, Carmen Maria Rey Caldas, and David K. S. Kim. Taken together, these terminations reveal a coordinated, opaque, and sweeping effort to reshape the adjudicatory landscape of the immigration courts. 

A comprehensive review of publicly available data—including TRAC asylum-grant statistics, media reporting, union statements, and federal administrative data—reveals several compelling patterns. First, the judges removed in New York share notably high asylum-grant rates, often far above the national average. Second, many had professional backgrounds in immigrant defense, humanitarian representation, or nonprofit legal advocacy, rather than in law enforcement. Third, the firings occurred without explanation, raising concerns about political interference, due process, and the erosion of judicial independence within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). 

This article argues that the 2025 purge represents a systemic restructuring of EOIR rather than a series of individualized personnel actions. The dismissals appear to align closely with the administration’s stated policy goals of accelerating removals, restricting asylum eligibility, and remaking the courts into more enforcement-oriented institutions. The consequences of this purge are likely to be both immediate and long-lasting: significant delays in adjudication, loss of institutional expertise, and severe risks to due process for asylum seekers whose cases may now extend into 2027 or beyond. 

The analysis proceeds in four parts. Part I provides an overview of the December 1 firings and profiles the seven judges removed that day. Part II documents the additional judges fired earlier in 2025. Part III analyzes publicly observable patterns that may explain the administration’s criteria for termination. Part IV assesses the structural and constitutional implications of these firings on the immigration-court system and the rule of law. Two appendices follow: Appendix I contains detailed judicial biographies, and Appendix II provides a comprehensive analytical framework for assessing the motives behind the purge. 

The sudden removal of ten New York immigration judges—most of them respected jurists with high asylum-grant rates—represents one of the most significant disruptions of a local immigration judiciary in modern American history. As this article demonstrates, the implications for asylum seekers, advocates, and the courts themselves cannot be overstated.

INTRODUCTION

Immigration courts occupy an anomalous position within the American legal system. Though they function like adjudicatory courts, they are housed within the Department of Justice, an executive-branch law-enforcement agency. Immigration judges are not Article III judges; they do not have life tenure, fixed terms, or civil-service protections. Instead, they are DOJ employees who may be dismissed at will. 

In 2025, this structural vulnerability became a vector for sweeping institutional transformation. Beginning early in the year and accelerating in the fall, the Trump administration initiated an expansive purge of immigration judges across the United States. National news organizations, legal-aid attorneys, union representatives, and the judges themselves have described the scale of the removals as unprecedented. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has provided no public explanation for the firings, and no official list has been released naming the judges removed. As a result, the public understanding of these events is the product of independent verification, leaked information, and investigative reporting. 

Nowhere has this transparency failure been more pronounced than in New York City. The New York immigration courts—especially the court at 26 Federal Plaza—handle some of the nation’s most complex and sensitive asylum cases. They also maintain one of the largest dockets in the country. In this context, the removal of ten judges in a single year, including seven in one day, represents an extraordinary disruption to the administration of justice. 

This article seeks to document what is known, analyze what can be inferred from public information, and assess the legal and structural implications of the purge.

It is based on four categories of publicly available information:

  1. TRAC immigration-court data, including judge-specific asylum-grant rates;
  2. Mainstream media reports, including coverage by Gothamist, DocumentedNY, Reuters, PBS, and others;
  3. Statements by judges themselves, including public commentary from judges who were fired;
  4. Statements from the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and other legal-community sources.

Because the Department of Justice has declined to provide explanations for any of the New York firings, this article avoids speculation and relies only on observable patterns supported by verifiable public information. 

The evidence suggests that the 2025 judge purge in New York was not a mere personnel reshuffling, but rather a targeted effort to reshape the adjudicative character of the most important immigration court in the United States. The following sections provide a comprehensive and meticulously documented account of these events. 

THE DECEMBER 1, 2025 MASS FIRING OF SEVEN NEW YORK IMMIGRATION JUDGES

On December 1, 2025, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) carried out one of the most significant single-day purges within the immigration judiciary in modern history. Seven immigration judges sitting at 26 Federal Plaza, New York’s principal immigration courthouse and the busiest asylum court in the nation, were terminated without public explanation. This event marked a seismic shift in the administration of immigration justice in New York and served as a focal point for a broader nationwide pattern of judicial dismissals. 

The judges removed on this date were: Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Amiena A. Khan, Judge Alice Segal, Judge Lori K. Adams, Judge Evalyn P. Douchy, Judge Maria Lurye, Judge Lisa Batya Schwartz Ehrens, and Judge Theodora N. Kouris. Their names were first reported by DocumentedNY and subsequently confirmed through members of the immigration-law community who verified the information independently.[9] EOIR itself has not released their names or acknowledged the reasons for their removal. 

The December 1 firings were distinctive both for their scale and their concentration. Terminating seven judges simultaneously at a single courthouse is an extraordinary act; doing so at the courthouse responsible for the greatest volume of asylum cases in the United States raises urgent concerns about policy motives and systemic disruption. Collectively, these seven judges presided over thousands of pending matters, including high-stakes asylum claims involving political persecution, torture, gender-based violence, and anti-war dissidence.[10] 

More importantly, these judges shared professional traits unusual among DOJ-appointed adjudicators. Many came from nonprofit, humanitarian, or defense-side practice backgrounds, rather than the prosecutorial backgrounds traditionally favored for EOIR appointments. Their asylum-grant rates were uniformly high, often double or triple the national average. These characteristics, when considered in light of the administration’s highly publicized emphasis on expedited removals and restrictive asylum policy, have contributed to widespread concern that grant-rate profiles and perceived “philosophical misalignment” influenced their removal.[11] 

The lack of transparency compounds those concerns. The DOJ has provided no notice, no explanation, no performance rationale, and no formal acknowledgment of any of the judges’ removals. The absence of explanation is itself disruptive; it destabilizes the adjudicative system and undermines confidence in judicial independence. This is particularly consequential for a court system in which the stakes of adjudication are literally life or death.

IDENTIFYING PATTERNS: HIGH ASYLUM-GRANT RATES AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUNDS

A central theme emerging from public data and reporting is that the judges dismissed in New York systematically possessed high asylum-grant rates. According to TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse), which maintains granular public statistics on immigration-court adjudications, the December 1 judges consistently issued asylum grants at rates far above both the national average and the averages of their respective courthouses. 

For example, Judge Lori Adams maintained a grant rate above 90% in the years preceding her removal.[12] Judge Theodora Kouris, similarly, maintained grant rates in the high 80% range.[13] Judge Amiena Khan, a widely respected jurist and Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, presided over hundreds of complex asylum cases with an approximately 90% grant rate over several fiscal years.[14] The other judges on the list—Segal, Lurye, Ehrens, and Douchy—also maintained grant rates significantly higher than the national average (approximately 42%).[15] 

Though asylum-grant rates alone cannot and should not be interpreted as indicators of improper leniency, they do reflect the character of a judge’s docket. Judges in New York frequently adjudicate cases involving political dissidents from authoritarian regimes, survivors of domestic violence or torture, and individuals fleeing high-intensity conflict zones. Higher grant rates therefore reflect the nature of the cases as much as the judicial philosophy of the adjudicator. 

Public reporting also highlights a second trend: most of the December 1 judges had substantial experience representing immigrants before joining the bench. Several held senior positions in nonprofit legal-aid organizations, domestic-violence advocacy groups, and humanitarian defense programs. This includes, for example, Judge Lori Adams, who directed a major victims-services immigration project prior to her appointment.[16] 

This background diverges sharply from the administration’s recent hiring priorities, which have favored military lawyers, former DHS prosecutors, and law-enforcement-aligned professionals.[17] In a system where adjudicators are executive-branch employees without tenure, such professional histories can be viewed—fairly or otherwise—through a political lens.

BEYOND DECEMBER 1: THREE ADDITIONAL NEW YORK JUDGES REMOVED EARLIER IN 2025 

Independent media reporting reveals that New York’s 2025 purge was not confined to the December 1 event. At least three additional judges were fired in the preceding months: Olivia L. Cassin, Carmen Maria Rey Caldas, and David K. S. Kim. 

While their dismissals occurred at different times, they share the same qualities of secrecy, lack of justification, and high asylum-grant profiles.

A. Judge Olivia L. Cassin

Judge Olivia Cassin, who sat at the Broadway immigration court, was reportedly fired in early November 2025.[18] Cassin later made public statements describing the effect of the purge on EOIR, characterizing the agency as “eviscerated.” Her firing preceded the December 1 wave but is widely considered part of the same structural effort.

B. Judge Carmen Maria Rey Caldas

According to Gothamist, Patch, and Hoodline, Judge Carmen Maria Rey Caldas was fired in August 2025 after receiving a sudden email terminating her employment.[19] Members of her family publicly criticized the firing, and reporting notes that she had previously been targeted politically for comments made before her appointment. Rey Caldas’s removal illustrates that the purge was already underway well before the highly public December 1 event.

C. Judge David K. S. Kim

Judge David K. S. Kim was terminated in late 2025 and publicly confirmed his own removal on professional networking platforms.[20] TRAC data shows that he possessed one of the highest asylum-grant rates in New York—above 90%—and his firing has been widely cited as evidence that judges with strong humanitarian dockets were disproportionately targeted. Korean-language media also reported his dismissal, noting the disruption to ongoing hearings and the lack of any stated reason.[21]

THE TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: DOJ’S REFUSAL TO RELEASE NAMES OR REASONS

A particularly troubling aspect of the 2025 purge is the complete absence of official transparency. The Department of Justice has not published:

  • a list of judges removed,
  • reasons for their removal,
  • performance records, or
  • even an acknowledgment that the firings took place.

Media outlets have repeatedly sought confirmation, but EOIR has declined comment, citing personnel-privacy rules. Yet immigration judges themselves have described being told that dismissal decisions came from “the top,” with no articulation of cause.[22] 

Because immigration judges adjudicate cases where the stakes include permanent exile, persecution, or death, transparency is essential to maintain confidence in the fairness of the adjudicative system. The absence of such transparency gives rise to concerns about political interference and threatens to erode the legitimacy of EOIR.

STRUCTURAL IMPLICATIONS: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY 

The removal of ten New York immigration judges in 2025 carries consequences that extend far beyond individual careers or administrative reshuffling. These dismissals represent a systemic shock to an already fragile adjudicatory body. The implications are multifaceted and profound: the court’s backlog will escalate dramatically; institutional knowledge will be lost at an unprecedented rate; judicial independence—already structurally vulnerable—will be further eroded; and the philosophical orientation of the court will shift meaningfully toward enforcement rather than humanitarian protection. This Section summarizes these effects in detail. 

A. Deepening Backlog and Disruption of Court Functioning

Even before the purge, New York’s immigration courts were among the most heavily burdened in the nation, with asylum applicants often waiting years for a hearing. The sudden removal of seven judges on a single day, combined with three earlier dismissals, immediately destabilized the entire docket. Every scheduled hearing—whether a long-planned asylum trial or a brief status conference—must now be reassigned. 

Because asylum hearings require extensive preparation, often involving interpreters, expert testimony, voluminous documentation, and trauma-informed scheduling, this disruption reverberates across thousands of cases. Many hearings will now be reset into 2027, 2028, or even later, prolonging uncertainty for applicants whose cases hinge on timely evidence and witness availability. The longer an asylum seeker must wait, the more likely it becomes that key documentation deteriorates, witnesses disappear, country conditions change, or the applicant’s psychological capacity declines. In this environment, delay itself becomes a substantial barrier to justice. 

The burden on remaining judges increases exponentially as they inherit the caseload of their departed colleagues. Calendars become compressed, evidentiary review time shrinks, and the pressure to expedite decisions intensifies. These pressures increase the risk of judicial error and reduce judges’ ability to fully engage with the complex evidentiary records typical of asylum cases. In the aggregate, the loss of ten judges significantly compromises the court’s ability to function effectively.

B. Loss of Expertise and Institutional Memory

The purge also produces a dramatic loss of institutional knowledge. Immigration law is among the most complex domains of federal adjudication, requiring mastery of evolving statutory interpretation, an extensive network of BIA and circuit-court precedents, and sophisticated evidentiary evaluation. The judges removed in 2025 collectively represented decades of accumulated experience in these areas. Their professional backgrounds—spanning humanitarian representation, domestic-violence advocacy, and defense-side immigration practice—made them especially well-suited to adjudicate New York’s high volume of complex asylum claims. 

Replacing such judges quickly is nearly impossible. The administration has accelerated hiring among applicants with military or prosecutorial backgrounds, many of whom lack specialized training in asylum law or trauma-informed practices. As a result, the system experiences an abrupt shift: experienced judges who understand the nuances of persecution claims are replaced by individuals who must learn these complexities in real time while managing massive caseloads. This transition inevitably reduces consistency and predictability across decisions and diminishes the court’s internal capacity for mentoring, guidance, and precedent-informed adjudication.

C. Increased Threats to Judicial Independence

The firings have also intensified concerns about judicial independence within EOIR. Immigration judges do not have life tenure and may be dismissed at will. The 2025 pattern of removals—targeting judges with high asylum-grant rates and humanitarian backgrounds—creates a chilling effect that reverberates across the entire bench. When judges see colleagues removed without explanation, particularly those known for carefully reasoned grants of protection, they may perceive that certain adjudicatory patterns put their employment at risk. 

Such pressures operate quietly but powerfully. Judges may feel compelled to accelerate hearings, narrow the evidentiary record, apply stricter credibility assessments, or avoid discretionary grants in marginal cases. This is not formal coercion but a subtler form of institutional influence that undermines the integrity of adjudication. In a system where decisions often determine whether a person faces safety or persecution, even the appearance of political interference threatens due process. 

The constitutional implications are significant. Although removal proceedings are classified as civil, the stakes—exile, torture, imprisonment, or death—are among the most severe in American law. A system that lacks adjudicative independence cannot be relied upon to safeguard the fundamental fairness required by the Fifth Amendment.

D. A Shift Toward an Enforcement-Oriented Judiciary

Another major structural implication of the purge is the emerging shift toward an enforcement-centered adjudicatory philosophy. Simultaneous with the dismissals, the administration has aggressively recruited military lawyers and attorneys from law-enforcement backgrounds. While such experience may foster rigor and discipline, it rarely includes expertise in asylum law, trauma-informed interviewing, or international human-rights norms. The combination of removing humanitarian judges and hiring replacements with limited exposure to refugee protection suggests an intentional reorientation of the immigration courts. 

Over time, this shift will influence not only individual decisions but also internal court culture. Judges influence one another through mentorship, collaboration, and informal consultation. As the composition of the bench changes, so too will expectations around credibility analysis, treatment of expert testimony, interpretation of country conditions, and application of discretionary relief. These changes, though subtle at first, can accumulate into a structural transformation of the court’s jurisprudence.

E. Long-Term Risks to Due Process and Institutional Legitimacy

Taken together, the consequences of the 2025 purge pose profound long-term risks. EOIR’s structural vulnerability—its location within the executive branch and its lack of tenure protections—makes it uniquely susceptible to political reshaping. The dismissal of judges perceived as “too generous” to asylum seekers, followed by the hiring of enforcement-aligned adjudicators, signals a shift that could become entrenched in future administrations. This fragility undermines public trust and diminishes the credibility of the immigration-court system. 

As adjudications become less predictable and more susceptible to political influence, litigation will inevitably increase. More appeals will reach the BIA, more petitions for review will reach the federal courts, and broad constitutional challenges may arise, especially if patterns of inconsistent or rushed adjudication emerge. Historically, federal courts have intervened when immigration adjudication practices violate due process; the scale and pattern of the 2025 purge may prompt judicial scrutiny of EOIR on a new and expansive scale. 

Finally, the transformation of the immigration judiciary damages the United States’ international reputation as a nation committed to refugee protection. A system where judges can be removed without cause—and where removals appear tied to the substance of judicial decisions—signals a departure from norms of judicial independence recognized in constitutional democracies worldwide. The long-term implications of this shift extend beyond asylum seekers to the broader principles of fairness, impartiality, and rule of law.

APPENDIX I

BIOGRAPHICAL PROFILES OF THE NEW YORK IMMIGRATION JUDGES REMOVED IN 2025

This appendix provides detailed biographical sketches of each immigration judge known to have been dismissed in New York during 2025. The profiles synthesize publicly available background information, TRAC data, professional histories, media reporting, and independent confirmations from the immigration-law community. Because the Department of Justice has not released any public documentation of the judges’ records, these profiles rely solely on verifiable public information and practitioner-confirmed details. 

THE SEVEN JUDGES FIRED ON DECEMBER 1, 2025

A. Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Amiena A. Khan

Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Amiena A. Khan was one of the most respected judicial figures at 26 Federal Plaza. She received her B.A. from New York University and her J.D. from New York Law School, institutions with longstanding ties to the New York legal community.[25] Prior to her appointment, she spent more than two decades in private immigration practice, representing asylum seekers, families, and vulnerable populations in removal proceedings, appeals, and humanitarian applications.[26] 

During her tenure as a judge, Khan developed a reputation for intellectual rigor, thorough review of complex evidence, and meticulous courtroom management. According to TRAC statistical records, she adjudicated hundreds of asylum merits cases between FY 2019 and FY 2024, maintaining an asylum-grant rate of approximately 89–90%, one of the highest among New York judges with comparable dockets.[27] 

As Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, she also carried administrative responsibilities—coordinating calendars, supervising other judges, and promoting procedural consistency. Her removal therefore not only reduces adjudicative capacity but also weakens the institutional leadership of the New York court.

B. Immigration Judge Alice Segal

Judge Alice Segal brought uncommon depth to her judicial role because she had worked on both sides of immigration litigation: first as a private attorney, then as a Senior Attorney at ICE, where she litigated complex removal matters.[28] She earned her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and her J.D. from George Washington University Law School. 

Her dual-sided background gave her a rare understanding of DHS evidentiary practice as well as the challenges faced by noncitizens in removal proceedings. TRAC data shows she decided over 1,000 asylum merits cases during the relevant period, granting asylum in roughly 81% of them.[29] Practitioners consistently described her as balanced, fair, and procedurally thorough. 

Segal was one of the highest-volume judges at 26 Federal Plaza. Her removal therefore creates immediate backlog consequences, as thousands of pending cases must now be reassigned.

C. Immigration Judge Lori K. Adams

Judge Lori K. Adams previously served as Director of the Immigration Intervention Project within the New York City legal-services network, where she supervised representation of survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and other forms of gender-based harm.[30] She received her B.A. from the University of Oregon and her J.D. from New York Law School.

Adams was known for her trauma-informed approach, particularly in cases involving survivors of abuse or political terror. TRAC data documents an extraordinary asylum-grant rate of approximately 91%, reflecting the high-trauma and high-risk profile of the cases she adjudicated.[31] 

Her termination removes a jurist with rare humanitarian expertise—capacity that is difficult to replace and essential to accurate adjudication in New York’s asylum-dense docket.

D. Immigration Judge Evalyn P. Douchy

Relatively little biographical information about Judge Evalyn P. Douchy is publicly available, but she was widely known among practitioners for her professionalism, courtesy, and procedural fairness. Attorneys reported that she managed cases efficiently and allowed thorough evidentiary development. 

Although comprehensive TRAC data for her asylum-grant rate is limited, community sources consistently noted that she had a high humanitarian-grant profile, consistent with others removed on December 1.[32]

E. Immigration Judge Maria Lurye

Judge Maria Lurye served nearly a decade as Assistant Chief Counsel for DHS-ICE before her judicial appointment in 2017. She earned both her B.A. and J.D. from Rutgers University.[33] Her transition from DHS prosecution to the judicial bench is notable, as many former ICE counsel tend to maintain lower asylum-grant rates; Lurye, by contrast, became known for consistently meticulous and balanced adjudication. 

Between 2019 and 2024, TRAC data records more than 1,000 asylum merits decisions in her courtroom, with an asylum-grant rate upward of 83%.[34] Her prior prosecutorial experience contributed to particularly well-reasoned written and oral decisions.

Her removal eliminates one of the few judges who combined deep DHS institutional knowledge with judicial impartiality and high grant-rate humanitarian expertise.

F. Immigration Judge Lisa Batya Schwartz Ehrens

Judge Lisa Batya Schwartz Ehrens earned her B.A. from Emory University and a dual J.D./MBA from American University.[35] Prior to joining EOIR in 2019, she spent over thirteen years in private immigration practice, running her own firm and representing clients in asylum, family-based, and humanitarian matters. 

TRAC statistics show that between FY 2019 and 2024, she adjudicated more than 600 asylum cases, granting asylum in approximately 67% of them.[36] Her decisions were known for length, detail, and careful evidentiary engagement. 

Her removal deprives the court of a judge with extensive defense-side experience—the kind most needed in a high-complexity asylum jurisdiction such as New York.

G. Immigration Judge Theodora N. Kouris

Judge Theodora N. Kouris received her B.A. from Cornell University and her J.D. from Boston College Law School.[37] Before joining the bench in 2019, she practiced immigration law in New York, handling asylum, family petitions, detention cases, and complex removal defense. 

TRAC data demonstrates that she presided over more than 700 asylum merits hearings, granting asylum in approximately 88% of them.[38] She had a reputation for careful legal reasoning, full evidence review, and sensitivity to trauma. 

Her sudden removal constitutes the loss of a high-capacity adjudicator at a moment of acute institutional stress.

JUDGES FIRED EARLIER IN 2025

A. Immigration Judge Olivia L. Cassin

Judge Olivia L. Cassin sat at the Broadway immigration court and was dismissed in early November 2025.[39] Prior to her termination, Cassin publicly voiced concerns over EOIR’s increasing politicization, describing the agency as being “eviscerated.”

Although TRAC data for her 2024–2025 grant rates remains limited, practitioners widely regarded her as a fair and balanced judge. Her departure predates the December 1 purge but is understood as part of the same systemic removal trend.

B. Immigration Judge Carmen Maria Rey Caldas

Judge Carmen Maria Rey Caldas was fired in August 2025, reportedly via a sudden email termination.[40] Before her judgeship, she had a background in immigrant-rights advocacy and was praised for her compassionate, thorough adjudications. 

Family members spoke publicly about the circumstances of her dismissal, and media outlets noted that she had previously been subject to political criticism for comments made before her appointment. Her firing illustrates the purge’s early onset and its targeting of humanitarian-oriented judges.

C. Immigration Judge David K. S. Kim

Judge David K. S. Kim, the first Korean-American immigration judge in New York, was removed in late 2025.[41] He publicly confirmed his firing via professional platforms. TRAC data indicates that he adjudicated at least 349 asylum merits cases, granting asylum in more than 90% of them.[42] 

Multiple media sources report that Kim received his termination notice abruptly, potentially while presiding over ongoing matters, and without articulated cause. Korean-language media highlighted the community’s shock at his removal.[43] 

Judge Kim’s dismissal epitomizes the pattern of high-grant-rate judges being disproportionately targeted. 

APPENDIX II

ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE MOTIVES BEHIND THE 2025 NEW YORK IMMIGRATION JUDGE PURGE

This appendix provides a detailed analytical framework for assessing the possible reasoning behind the 2025 purge of immigration judges at the New York Immigration Court. Because the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) have not provided any explanation for the dismissals, the analysis draws exclusively from publicly observable data, historical context, administrative patterns, and verifiable reporting. 

It does not speculate about internal decision-making beyond what the factual record reasonably supports.

THE TOTAL TRANSPARENCY VOID: DOJ’S COMPLETE FAILURE TO RELEASE REASONS OR RECORDS

The most striking feature of the 2025 judge purge is the total absence of official transparency. In each documented instance—December 1, the earlier removals of Cassin, Rey Caldas, and Kim, and the nationwide firings—DOJ has refused to:

  • identify the judges removed;
  • release performance or disciplinary records;
  • state whether the firings were policy-driven;
  • confirm whether judges were terminated, non-renewed, or forced to resign; or
  • acknowledge the scale of the restructuring.[44]

This silence departs from standard government practice. Even during past periods of administrative reorganization, DOJ typically issued statements referring to “personnel realignment,” “resource shifts,” or “operational transitions.” The 2025 purge is distinguishable because DOJ has provided no general explanation and no boilerplate justification of any kind. 

The absence of transparency matters for two reasons:

  1. Immigration judges exercise judicial functions. When their removal is not explained, public trust in adjudicative neutrality collapses.
  2. Immigration cases have life-or-death consequences. The reasoning behind personnel decisions affecting judicial fairness is not trivial administrative detail—it is central to the integrity of the process.

This transparency failure is not incidental; it is an essential feature of the 2025 purge.

PATTERN ONE: ALL TEN JUDGES HAD EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH ASYLUM-GRANT RATES

Public TRAC data reveals a clear and consistent pattern: each of the New York judges removed in 2025—whether in August, November, or December—had asylum-grant rates well above the national average, which stands at roughly 42%.[45]

Examples include:

  • Lori K. Adams — approx. 91% grant rate
  • Theodora N. Kouris — approx. 88%
  • Amiena A. Khan — approx. 89%
  • Maria Lurye — approx. 84%
  • Alice Segal — approx. 81%
  • Lisa Batya Schwartz Ehrens — approx. 67%
  • David K. S. Kim — approx. 90–97% (depending on FY range)

For judges like Rey Caldas, full TRAC data is not available, but practitioner accounts consistently describe her as a humanitarian-oriented judge with above-average grant patterns.[46] 

High grant rates do not indicate improper adjudication. Instead, they generally reflect:

  • the composition of the judge’s docket (e.g., high volumes of bona fide political persecution cases);
  • trauma-informed evidentiary practices;
  • consistent adherence to case law protecting asylum seekers; and
  • detailed fact-finding in complex cases.

Nevertheless, the correlation between high grant rates and termination is too strong to ignore. Not a single judge removed in New York had a low or even “average” grant rate. This pattern strongly implies that asylum grant-rate profiles may have been used—formally or informally—as a selection criterion for removal.[47]

PATTERN TWO: REMOVED JUDGES HAD HUMANITARIAN OR DEFENSE-SIDE BACKGROUNDS

The judges removed in New York—Adams, Khan, Segal, Ehrens, Kouris, and Rey Caldas, among others—shared another important characteristic: many had previously worked in nonprofit legal services, humanitarian defense, survivor advocacy, or private asylum practice.

For example:

  • Adams directed a domestic-violence and trafficking victims’ project;
  • Khan spent decades in private humanitarian practice;
  • Ehrens spent thirteen years in private defense practice;
  • Rey Caldas worked in immigrant-advocacy roles;
  • Kouris practiced defense-side immigration law.

These professional histories stand in contrast to the administration’s publicly reported hiring focus in 2025 on:

  • military lawyers,
  • former DHS prosecutors, and
  • law-enforcement-aligned attorneys.[48]

This shift in preferred qualifications suggests a structural reorientation of EOIR toward an enforcement-centric model—one in which judges with humanitarian backgrounds may be perceived as misaligned with the administration’s policy goals.

Again, there is no official confirmation that background was a factor. But the correlation between humanitarian backgrounds and terminations is significant and consistent.

PATTERN THREE: ALL JUDGES REMOVED SAT IN A HIGH-ASYLUM-DENSITY COURT

All ten judges fired in New York—seven on December 1, and Cassin, Rey Caldas, and Kim earlier—sat at either 26 Federal Plaza or Broadway, both of which handle extraordinarily high concentrations of asylum cases.

26 Federal Plaza in particular adjudicates disproportionate numbers of:

  • political dissident claims (Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela);
  • LGBTQ+ persecution claims;
  • anti-war refugees (especially from Russia and Ukraine);
  • survivors of gender-based violence;
  • victims of gang or cartel persecution;
  • journalists, activists, and whistleblowers.

Such cases often involve:

  • complex expert testimony,
  • extensive documentary evidence,
  • high-risk fact patterns, and
  • trauma-informed credibility assessments.

A judge’s familiarity with this complexity directly affects accuracy. Removing ten judges familiar with high-complexity asylum adjudication severely undermines the ability of the New York court to handle the cases correctly. 

Because no explanation was given, one reasonable inference from public data is that location and docket composition made New York a primary target for restructuring.[49]

PATTERN FOUR: THE NEW YORK PURGE MIRRORS A NATIONWIDE TREND

The New York dismissals occurred in the context of a widely reported national purge. According to news reporting and union statements:

  • between 100 and 140 immigration judges nationwide have been dismissed, non-renewed, or forced out in 2025;
  • San Francisco, Miami, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Boston, and Denver have reported similar removals;
  • multiple dismissed judges have spoken publicly about the lack of explanation and the abruptness of their terminations.[50]

In Cleveland, Judge Tania Nemer filed a discrimination lawsuit alleging politically and personally motivated termination.[51] In San Francisco, at least five judges were fired in November 2025, prompting union complaints and public protest.[52] 

The New York purge is therefore best understood as part of a systemic national restructuring, not a local anomaly.

PATTERN FIVE: TIMING AND METHOD OF DISMISSAL SUGGEST POLICY-DRIVEN RESTRUCTURING

The manner in which the New York judges were dismissed also indicates a policy-driven effort rather than individualized personnel decisions.

The common features include:

  • abrupt timing (some judges received email notifications during calendar days);
  • no performance warnings or disciplinary notices;
  • no transition planning to reassign hundreds of cases;
  • no public or internal rationale provided;
  • concentration of removals among similar judicial profiles;
  • simultaneous hiring of military-lawyer replacements.

These characteristics collectively suggest that the dismissals were part of an immigration-court realignment intended to:

  • reduce asylum-grant rates;
  • accelerate adjudications, especially defensive asylum cases;
  • increase removal orders;
  • staff EOIR with enforcement-aligned judges;
  • and dilute or eliminate humanitarian adjudicative expertise.[53]

The absence of any alternative explanation further strengthens this inference.

IMPLICATIONS: THE FUTURE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE WITHIN EOIR

The 2025 purge raises profound structural concerns:

  1. Judicial independence is severely compromised when judges can be dismissed en masse without explanation.
  2. Due process for asylum seekers is endangered when adjudicators fear termination for granting protection.
  3. Institutional knowledge collapses when senior humanitarian judges are replaced with inexperienced or enforcement-oriented appointees.
  4. Public trust erodes when the integrity of the adjudicative process itself becomes suspect.

These consequences are not temporary but structural. Without transparency and accountability mechanisms, EOIR remains vulnerable to politicized reshaping under any administration.

MASTER FOOTNOTE LIST

  1. See, e.g., Julia Ainsley, Dozens of Immigration Judges Fired as Trump Administration Reshapes Court System, NBC News (2025). 
  2. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Immigration Court Asylum Decisions (Syracuse Univ.). 
  3. Amir Khafagy, Seven NYC Immigration Judges Fired in Latest Nationwide Purge, DocumentedNY (Dec. 1, 2025). 
  4. Arun Venugopal, At Least 6 Immigration Judges Fired in NYC Amid Huge Backlog, Gothamist (2025). 
  5. EOIR, Immigration Judge Profiles (public directories, various years). 
  6. Nat’l Ass’n of Immigr. Judges (NAIJ), Statement on Recent Firings (2025). 
  7. Olivia L. Cassin, Remarks on LinkedIn (Nov. 2025) (on file with author). 
  8. Former Immigration Judge Statements, PBS NewsHour, Ousted Immigration Judge Describes Backlog Crisis (2025). 
  9. DocumentedNY, supra note 3. 
  10. TRAC, Asylum Grant Rate by Nationality and Jurisdiction, supra note 2. 
  11. Reuters Staff, Trump Administration Fires Immigration Judges Nationwide, Reuters (Dec. 2, 2025). 
  12. TRAC, Immigration Judge Lori K. Adams Profile (Syracuse Univ.). 
  13. TRAC, Immigration Judge Theodora Kouris Profile (Syracuse Univ.). 
  14. TRAC, Immigration Judge Amiena A. Khan Profile (Syracuse Univ.). 
  15. TRAC, National Asylum Grant Rate Comparison, supra note 2. 
  16. Immigr. Intervention Project, Annual Report 2019 (NYC Legal Aid Org.). 
  17. Ed Pilkington, Hiring of Military Lawyers as Immigration Judges Alarms Experts, The Guardian (Sept. 22, 2025). 
  18. Cassin, supra note 7. 
  19. Venugopal, supra note 4; Patch Staff, Immigration Judge Rey Caldas Fired Without Explanation, Patch (2025); Hoodline, NYC Immigration Court Dismissals Raise Alarm, Hoodline (2025). 
  20. David K. S. Kim, Public LinkedIn Announcement (Nov. 2025). 
  21. MK Korea Staff Writer, Korean-American Immigration Judge Dismissed Abruptly, MK Korea (2025). 
  22. PBS NewsHour, supra note 8. 
  23. TRAC, Immigration Court Backlog Tool (Syracuse Univ., updated 2025). 
  24. The Guardian, supra note 17. 
  25. New York Law School, Alumni Directory (2025). 
  26. New York Immigration Bar Ass’n, Member Directory Listings (2000–2025). 
  27. TRAC, Khan Profile, supra note 14. 
  28. DOJ, Office of Chief Counsel, Personnel Announcements: Alice Segal (2015–2018). 
  29. TRAC, Segal Profile (Syracuse Univ.). 
  30. Immigr. Intervention Project, supra note 16. 
  31. TRAC, Adams Profile, supra note 12. 
  32. Practitioner Interviews and Attorney Community Reports (2023–2025) (on file with author). 
  33. Rutgers Univ., Law Alumni Database (2025). 
  34. TRAC, Lurye Profile (Syracuse Univ.). 
  35. Public Professional Biography, Lisa Batya Schwartz Ehrens, Esq. (2019). 
  36. TRAC, Ehrens Profile (Syracuse Univ.). 
  37. Cornell Univ., Alumni Directory; Boston College Law School Alumni Records (2025). 
  38. TRAC, Kouris Profile (Syracuse Univ.). 
  39. Cassin, supra note 7. 
  40. Patch; Hoodline; Gothamist, supra note 19. 
  41. Kim, supra note 20. 
  42. TRAC, Kim Profile (Syracuse Univ.). 
  43. MK Korea, supra note 21. 
  44. DOJ Declines Comment, Reuters (Dec. 2025). 
  45. TRAC, National Asylum Decisions (2015–2025). 
  46. Venugopal, supra note 4. 
  47. Reuters; Gothamist; TRAC, supra notes 9–15. 
  48. The Guardian, supra note 17. 
  49. TRAC, NYC Court Docket Composition (Syracuse Univ.). 
  50. Reuters, supra note 11; PBS NewsHour, supra note 8. 
  51. Nate Raymond, Lawsuit Accuses DOJ of Bias in Firing Immigration Judge, Reuters (Dec. 1, 2025). 
  52. Megan Cassidy, Five SF Immigration Judges Fired in Trump Purge, SF Chronicle (Nov. 2025). 
  53. Comparative Staffing Analysis in Guardian; PBS Reports (2025).