Fired Immigration Judge Sues DOJ Over Retaliation Claims
Former San Francisco immigration judge Chloe Dillon has sued the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for raising concerns about the detention of an unaccompanied migrant minor. The lawsuit, filed Sept. 10, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, adds a new dimension to the growing legal battle over the Trump administration’s removal of immigration judges: rather than primarily alleging discrimination, Dillon argues that her termination violated federal whistleblower protections and constitutional safeguards because she spoke up about what she believed were potential violations of immigration law and due process.
Dillon’s allegations center on an incident in August 2025 involving an unaccompanied minor who had appeared before her immigration court. According to the complaint, Dillon learned that the child had been detained by immigration authorities after leaving her courtroom. She believed the circumstances raised serious legal concerns because, according to her lawsuit, the minor could not lawfully be placed into expedited removal proceedings and was entitled to have an already-filed asylum application considered first by an asylum officer. Dillon subsequently emailed her supervisor to flag what she characterized as potential violations of statutory law and due process. Approximately 48 hours later, she was fired.
The timing of the firing forms a central part of Dillon’s retaliation theory. Her attorneys contend that she was terminated because of her whistleblowing activity, rather than for legitimate performance or personnel reasons. The lawsuit invokes the Whistleblower Protection Act and the First Amendment, while also asserting claims under the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and Article II. The case therefore potentially raises questions extending beyond one judge’s employment dispute and into the constitutional limits of executive power over immigration adjudicators.
Dillon also alleges that the August incident was not an isolated disagreement with the administration’s immigration policies. Earlier in 2025, she had questioned a directive instructing immigration judges to grant all motions to change venue filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement trial attorneys. According to the complaint, her assistant chief immigration judge told her that the White House was watching the issue and cautioned her against resisting the directive. Dillon’s lawsuit portrays those events as evidence of an environment in which judges faced pressure not to challenge immigration-enforcement practices.
The case comes amid a much broader restructuring of the nation’s immigration courts. Bloomberg Law reports that the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review has fired more than 100 immigration judges since January 2025, while implementing policies designed to accelerate case processing and encouraging new hires to be restrictive in granting asylum. Other dismissed judges have filed lawsuits alleging discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, age or associations with immigrant advocacy. Dillon’s case is notable because it appears to be the first lawsuit from a fired immigration judge specifically asserting whistleblower protections in connection with the administration’s detention and deportation policies.
The dispute also highlights the unusual legal status of immigration judges. Unlike federal district judges, circuit judges and Supreme Court justices, immigration judges are executive-branch officials rather than members of the independent federal judiciary. They are appointed by the attorney general and operate within the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. That structure gives the executive branch considerably more control over immigration adjudication than it has over Article III judges, but Dillon’s lawsuit argues that executive authority is not unlimited and cannot be used to retaliate against an employee for raising protected legal concerns.
The Justice Department has strongly rejected the retaliation allegation. DOJ spokesperson Kiersten Pels told Bloomberg Law that, while the department generally does not comment on pending litigation or personnel matters, the allegation was “patently false.” DOJ has characterized its broader immigration-court changes as an effort to restore integrity to the immigration system, while criticizing policies implemented under the Biden administration.
Dillon’s personal record adds another layer to the dispute. She was appointed to the San Francisco immigration court in 2022 and, according to government data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, granted asylum in 96% of cases, compared with a national average of approximately 63% during the same period. Her court was subsequently among the immigration courts affected by the administration’s restructuring; the San Francisco immigration court was permanently closed on Sept. 4, 2026.
Importantly, there has been no judicial finding that Dillon was unlawfully terminated or that the DOJ retaliated against her. These are allegations contained in a newly filed complaint, and the government’s position directly disputes them. The legal significance will therefore depend on how the federal court evaluates the statutory whistleblower claim, the constitutional claims and the government’s assertion of executive authority.
The lawsuit could nevertheless become an important test of the administration’s ability to control immigration adjudicators while pursuing an aggressive deportation agenda. It raises a fundamental question: Can an executive-branch immigration judge be dismissed after raising concerns about potentially unlawful enforcement actions, or does the attorney general’s authority over immigration judges permit such a termination? The answer could affect not only Dillon but also the broader balance between executive control, employee protections, judicial independence and due process in America’s immigration courts.
Key Legal Outcome
- No final judgment yet: Dillon’s case was filed Sept. 10, 2026, so the court has not yet ruled on whether her termination was unlawful.
- Retaliation is the central claim: She alleges that her firing violated the Whistleblower Protection Act and First Amendment after she raised concerns about an unaccompanied minor’s detention.
- Multiple constitutional claims: The complaint also invokes the Fifth Amendment, Appointments Clause and Article II, potentially putting executive authority directly at issue.
- The DOJ denies the allegation: DOJ spokesperson Kiersten Pels called the retaliation allegation “patently false.”
- Case now moves into federal litigation: The action, Dillon v. Blanche, No. 3:26-cv-10143, was filed in the Northern District of California.
Why It Matters
- Tests executive power: The lawsuit could become another test of how much authority the executive branch has to remove immigration judges.
- Whistleblower protections: A ruling could clarify whether immigration judges can invoke whistleblower protections when challenging alleged unlawful government conduct.
- Due process for migrant children: The underlying dispute concerns protections afforded to unaccompanied minors under federal immigration law, making the case significant beyond employment law.
- Part of a larger judicial shake-up: More than 100 immigration judges have been fired since January 2025, with several now challenging their dismissals in court.
- Impact on immigration adjudication: The case could influence how freely immigration judges can raise legal concerns while the government pursues faster deportation proceedings and changes the composition of immigration courts.
