Introduction

In a development that underscores ongoing turmoil in the nation’s immigration courts, former Chicago-based Immigration Judge Carla I. Espinoza has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), claiming her termination in July 2025 violated her First Amendment rights and federal anti-discrimination laws.

The 12-page verified complaint, filed on or about May 5–6, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:26-cv-05157, Espinoza v. Blanche), names Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the DOJ as defendants. Espinoza seeks reinstatement to her position, back pay, benefits, interest, compensatory damages, court costs, and a declaratory judgment that the government’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the First Amendment.

Background on Espinoza’s Appointment and Termination

Espinoza was appointed as an immigration judge in July 2023 after working for over a decade as an attorney representing immigrants. She served on the detained docket in Chicago, handling more than 1,000 cases in her first year alone. Like many judges appointed around that time, she was subject to a two-year probationary period before potential conversion to a permanent position.

She was terminated in mid-July 2025—near the end of her probationary term—via email while on the bench, with no explanation provided at the time. Espinoza publicly questioned whether her gender, Hispanic surname/heritage, or prior work as an immigration advocate played a role. She is at least the third former Chicago-area immigration court official to sue the Trump administration over her removal.

The lawsuit highlights that Espinoza was one of approximately 20 judges from a single 38-judge cohort appointed in 2023 who were not retained. It alleges the terminations disproportionately targeted probationary judges with Hispanic, Middle Eastern, or South Asian surnames/backgrounds, or those with prior experience in immigrant advocacy.

Key Allegations: Discrimination, Retaliation, and Constitutional Challenge

The complaint asserts that Espinoza’s firing was motivated by:

  • Her prior employment representing immigrants (protected First Amendment association and speech).
  • Her race, sex, national origin, and/or association with protected classes.

It further claims these actions violate Title VII (prohibiting employment discrimination) and the First Amendment. The suit directly challenges the administration’s reliance on Article II of the Constitution to treat immigration judges as at-will employees who can be fired without cause or equal opportunity protections—arguing this position improperly bypasses civil rights laws.

Espinoza’s attorney, Kevin Owen, has stated that similar lawsuits involving other terminated judges share common threads: prior employment or perceived political affiliations that do not align with the administration’s view of an “appropriate” immigration judge. He noted DOJ resistance to information requests and warned that the administration’s stance—that federal workers have “no rights”—should concern everyone.

The DOJ has declined to comment on the pending litigation.

Broader Context: The EOIR Purge and Its Impact on Immigration Adjudication

Espinoza’s case fits into a documented nationwide pattern of immigration judge removals under the second Trump administration. As of April 2026, more than 100 immigration judges (over 13% of the approximately 750-judge corps in place when President Trump took office in January 2025) had been dismissed, forced out, or not renewed—far exceeding prior administrations.

Data analyzed by The New York Times and referenced in prior coverage on this site show the firings were not random. Fired judges were disproportionately those appointed under the prior administration, those with defense/advocacy backgrounds, and those with significantly higher asylum grant rates (approximately 46% during the current administration, compared to 15% for retained judges). Newer appointees—often former DHS prosecutors or military lawyers with limited immigration experience—have granted asylum in roughly 6% of cases, contributing to a national asylum grant rate collapse (from ~42% under Biden to ~20% overall, and as low as 7% in some months).

This site has extensively covered the EOIR purge as a systematic transformation of the immigration courts:

  • January 2026 article on the sudden firing of eight New York immigration judges, highlighting risks to due process and judicial independence.
  • April 2026 update confirming the scale of dismissals, statistical targeting of higher-grant judges, and policy shifts (e.g., blanket bond denials accelerating case abandonments among detained respondents).

Related developments include EOIR memoranda (such as a June 2025 memo under then-Acting Director Sirce Owen warning of “bias” favoring noncitizens and threatening discipline) issued shortly before some firings, including Espinoza’s. She and colleagues reportedly interpreted such guidance as directing judges to be more favorable to the government.

Implications for Practitioners and Due Process

These lawsuits, including Espinoza’s, raise profound questions about the independence of immigration judges—who, as Article II adjudicators within the DOJ, lack the protections of Article III judges. The pattern alleged in Espinoza’s complaint and parallel cases (e.g., former Concord, CA Immigration Judge Kyra Lilien’s recent suit) suggests that protected characteristics and protected activity may be influencing employment decisions in ways that undermine fair hearings.

For immigration practitioners, the purge has already reshaped court dynamics: higher denial rates, accelerated proceedings, and reduced individualized adjudication. As noted in our prior analyses, a backlog “reduced” through mass denials and voluntary departures does not equate to a functioning, fair asylum system.

We will continue monitoring Espinoza v. Blanche and related litigation for developments that could affect the rights of respondents nationwide. This case, like others emerging from the EOIR purge, may test the limits of executive authority over immigration adjudication.

Related Coverage on MyAttorneyUSA.com: