The Trump administration terminated two immigration judges who had ruled against deporting a group of Palestinian rights advocates, a move that drew immediate legal challenges and reignited a decades-old case at the center of a broader fight over executive power and immigration enforcement.
The firings targeted Judge Samuel B. Cole and Judge Mimi Tsankov, both based in New York, ABC News reported. Both judges had issued rulings favorable to a group of long-term U.S. residents known as the "LA Eight," Palestinian and Kenyan nationals whom the government has sought to remove since the late 1980s. The Department of Justice confirmed the terminations but did not publicly detail the reasons behind them.
The case has bounced through the immigration court system for nearly four decades. The government originally targeted the eight individuals for alleged ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a group designated as a terrorist organization. Removal proceedings have continued in various forms since 1987, making it one of the longest-running immigration cases in U.S. history.
Cole and Tsankov each handled portions of the LA Eight proceedings. Both judges ruled that the government's cases should be terminated, finding that the decades of delay and procedural issues weighed against continued prosecution of the removal actions. Their rulings effectively blocked the administration from moving forward with deportation.
The administration viewed the rulings as obstacles to enforcing immigration law. Immigration judges serve as employees of the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review, not as Article III judges with lifetime tenure. That distinction matters: unlike federal judges confirmed by the Senate, immigration judges can be hired and fired by the executive branch.
The administration has clashed with judges across multiple fronts in recent months. In a separate but thematically related dispute, federal judges have split over birthright citizenship as a Trump executive order on the issue works its way toward the Supreme Court.
The National Association of Immigration Judges, the union representing the judges, condemned the terminations. Judge Mimi Tsankov served as the union's former president. The union characterized the firings as retaliation for rulings the administration did not like, calling the action a direct threat to judicial independence within the immigration court system.
"This is a blatant attempt to intimidate immigration judges and undermine the independence of the immigration courts," the union said in a statement, as reported by ABC News.
Attorneys for the LA Eight echoed those concerns. David Cole, legal director of the ACLU and longtime counsel for several members of the group, said the firings sent a clear message to every immigration judge in the country: rule against the government and risk your career.
"The firing of these judges is designed to send a message to every immigration judge in the country: if you rule against the government, you will be fired."
The ACLU filed an emergency motion in federal court seeking to block the terminations and restore the judges to their positions. The motion argued that firing judges for their rulings violates due process protections and chills the independence that immigration courts need to function.
The Department of Justice pushed back against the retaliation claims. A DOJ spokesperson told ABC News that immigration judges are DOJ employees who serve at the pleasure of the attorney general. The spokesperson said personnel decisions are made based on the needs of the agency and declined to discuss the specifics of either judge's termination.
That framing reflects a longstanding structural tension in immigration law. Unlike the federal judiciary, where judges hold their positions during "good behavior" under Article III of the Constitution, immigration judges operate within the executive branch. Critics on both sides of the aisle have pointed to this arrangement as a problem for years, with some calling for the creation of an independent immigration court.
The administration's willingness to use its hiring and firing power over immigration judges fits a broader pattern. President Trump has moved aggressively to shape the judiciary at every level, from the Supreme Court down to the administrative tribunals that handle the bulk of immigration cases.
The underlying case dates to January 1987, when federal agents arrested seven Palestinian men and a Kenyan woman in Los Angeles. The government alleged they were members of or affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and sought to deport them under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that targeted individuals associated with groups advocating "world communism."
The legal basis for the case shifted over the decades. After Congress reformed immigration law in 1990 and again in 1996, the government adjusted its theories for removal. The individuals fought each iteration in court. Several of the original eight have since left the country, died, or resolved their cases through other means. The remaining cases landed before Cole and Tsankov.
The judges found that the government's pursuit of the cases after nearly four decades raised serious fairness concerns. Cole ruled that the extraordinary delay prejudiced the respondents and that the government had not demonstrated a legitimate basis for continuing the proceedings. Tsankov reached a similar conclusion in the matters before her.
The administration's decision to fire both judges rather than appeal their rulings through the normal administrative process raised eyebrows among immigration law practitioners. The Board of Immigration Appeals, the DOJ body that reviews immigration judge decisions, could have reversed the rulings through standard channels.
The ACLU's emergency motion landed in the Central District of California. The filing asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the government from replacing the fired judges or reassigning the LA Eight cases to new judges who might reach different conclusions.
Attorneys for the respondents argued that reassigning the cases would effectively allow the administration to "judge-shop" for favorable outcomes, a practice that undermines the integrity of any adjudicative system. The motion also raised First Amendment concerns, arguing that the original case against the LA Eight was rooted in their political advocacy for Palestinian rights rather than any criminal conduct.
The administration has faced similar accusations of overreach in other legal arenas. In one ongoing dispute, an appeals court ordered a lower court judge to weigh national security risks before blocking a Trump administration construction project, illustrating the recurring tension between executive authority and judicial review.
Investigators and the court will need to determine whether the DOJ followed its own internal procedures for terminating immigration judges. The union has argued that civil service protections apply to the judges and that the firings may have violated those protections. The DOJ has not publicly released documentation of the termination process.
The terminations carry weight beyond the LA Eight case. The immigration court system employs roughly 600 judges nationwide, all of whom now understand that the current administration will use its personnel authority when it disagrees with judicial outcomes. Whether that constitutes accountability or intimidation depends on where you sit.
For the administration, the firings represent a straightforward exercise of executive power over executive branch employees. Immigration judges are not Senate-confirmed. They do not enjoy the structural independence that Article III judges possess. If they issue rulings the attorney general considers wrong, the attorney general can act.
For critics, the move crosses a line. Even within an executive branch court system, the argument goes, judges must be free to rule on the merits without fear of losing their jobs. The ACLU and the judges' union both warned that the firings will produce a chilling effect, pushing immigration judges toward government-friendly rulings to protect their careers.
The broader fight over the administration's willingness to challenge judicial obstacles has played out in multiple courtrooms this year. The immigration judge firings add a new and more direct dimension: rather than appealing unfavorable rulings, the administration removed the judges who issued them.
The federal court in California has not yet ruled on the ACLU's emergency motion. If the court grants the restraining order, Cole and Tsankov could be temporarily reinstated while the legal challenge proceeds. If the court denies it, the DOJ will likely reassign the LA Eight cases to new judges.
The judges' union has signaled it will pursue additional legal action, including potential grievances through the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The union's position is that the firings violated the collective bargaining agreement covering immigration judges.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether any other immigration judges face similar termination. The DOJ declined to say whether additional personnel actions are planned.
When the executive branch can fire the judges who rule against it, the question stops being about immigration law. It becomes about whether the word "judge" means anything at all.
