Watch the video, Ex-immigration judge sues Trump administration, alleging she was fired over whistleblowing, on ABC News.

Note: This video has strong political overtones. It is neither the intent nor desire of your author to present this material in a partisan way. Rather, it is intended to spark discussion regarding the ethics of terminating a federal judge who is also a whistleblowing employee.

According to the article, a former immigration judge in California has sued the Trump administration, alleging she was terminated without cause after raising concerns that federal agents had unlawfully detained an unaccompanied minor.

Chloe Dillon, who served as an immigration judge in San Francisco for three years, said in her complaint that she was terminated last August despite receiving "excellent reviews" and resolving thousands of cases with few appeals.

Dillon, who believes she was terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing, is one of more than 120 immigration judges who have been removed during the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, according to the union representing immigration judges.

According to Dillon's complaint, immigration judges received a directive last April from the assistant chief immigration judge stating that all requests by the Department of Homeland Security to move a case to a different venue should be granted.

The directive was contrary to previous court rulings that provided immigration judges with discretion to decide motions to change venue, Dillon's attorneys said in the complaint.

The former immigration judge expressed concern about the directive and met with Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Loi McCleskey, according to court documents.

"Plaintiff further expressed concern that it might interfere even with the non-citizen's right to counsel, as Plaintiff did not know if attorneys would be able to retain the case once transferred to another court, potentially even out of state," the complaint alleges.

"ACIJ McCleskey expressed empathy with Plaintiff's point of view but warned her that 'the White House' was paying attention to this and to be careful about pushing the issue further," Dillon's complaint states.

According to the complaint, Dillon raised concerns about ICE stating in motions that the immigration court was required to re-calendar asylum cases that had been closed, in order to allow ICE to pursue the removal of the asylum applicant.

In July and August 2025, Dillon issued two orders denying ICE's motion to re-calendar a case because the individuals were unaccompanied minors whose cases had been administratively closed.

The former judge alleged in the complaint that in late August an individual who had been arrested by ICE appeared in immigration court and represented himself because he did not have an attorney.

Dillon said she learned through court staff that the individual was detained after he left the courtroom and that there were "loud protests outside the court at 100 Montgomery that day, which made it nearly impossible to work in her chambers."

According to the complaint, Dillon looked at the individual's file again and noticed that he was "almost certainly a designated unaccompanied minor who could not be placed into expedited removal proceedings" and had a right to have his asylum case decided by an asylum officer.

"That same afternoon, Plaintiff sent an email to ACIJ McCleskey explaining these concerns and explicitly stating that she was concerned about potential violations of statutory law and due process," the complaint states.

Dillon was fired 48 hours after she sent the email, her attorneys said in the complaint.

"Plaintiff reported suspected violations of law, rule, or regulation to her supervisor, a person in a position of authority," the complaint states. "Two days later, she received an emailed letter from the Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, informing her that the Attorney General was terminating her employment 'pursuant to Article II of the Constitution.'"

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said, "While we do not typically comment on pending litigation or personnel matters, we can tell you that this allegation is patently false."

"After four years of the Biden Administration forcing Immigration Courts to implement a de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens, this Department of Justice is restoring integrity to our immigration system and encourages talented legal professionals to join in our mission to protect national security and public safety," the spokesperson said.

Discussion Questions

  1. Can federal judges be fired without cause? Why or why not?

    Constitutionally, federal Article III (of the U.S. Constitution) judges cannot be fired without cause—or even for cause—by the U.S. president, the Congress, or another government official acting as an employer.

    Federal judges have life tenure under Article III of the Constitution and may be removed from office only through the constitutional impeachment process: the U.S. House of Representatives must impeach the judge, and the Senate must convict by a two-thirds vote.

  2. What whistleblower protections are available to federal employees?

    Federal employees who report illegal conduct, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety may receive protection from retaliation under federal whistleblower laws.

    The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, as amended by later laws, generally prohibits agencies from taking or threatening personnel actions against employees because they made protected disclosures. Depending on the circumstances, employees can report concerns through their agency’s inspector general, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or Congress, and may seek corrective action if they experience retaliation.

    Some disclosures and employees are subject to additional rules or procedures, so the exact protections depend on the employee’s position and the type of information reported.

  3. In your reasoned opinion, are whistleblower protections particularly important for judges? Explain your response.

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. 

    In your author’s opinion, constitutional and whistleblower protections are particularly important for federal judges to preserve judicial independence. Such protections prevent judges from being removed from the bench simply because their decisions are unpopular or politically inconvenient.