Several other judges in Massachusetts and at immigration courts in other states were also fired in recent weeks, including the Chelmsford immigration judge who earlier this year terminated the government’s deportations proceedings against Columbia University student and Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi. The dismissals were first reported by The New York Times.

Immigration judges are employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of Justice agency that runs the immigration courts. Under the executive branch, they can be summarily removed by the administration.

EOIR and the DOJ did not respond to a request for comment Sunday on why the judges were removed.

But the Trump administration appears to be in the process of overhauling the immigration court system. Including last week’s dismissals, 113 immigration judges out of more than 700 have been fired since January 2025, according to Matt Biggs, the president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. The union represents federal workers, including immigration judges.

The terminations have happened “without due process, cause or explanation,” Biggs said in a statement to the Globe.

Immigration courts in Massachusetts have been hit particularly hard by the judicial firings. At the start of the Trump administration, there were eleven judges in Boston’s immigration court. Now, only five judges are listed on its website.

“The courts in Boston and Chelmsford have been gutted. This is wrong and unjust,” Biggs said.

In recent months, the administration has begun replacing the fired judges with its own appointees — some of whom have little expertise in immigration law.

Patel said she is not sure she was fired in retaliation for her ruling on the Öztürk case specifically, but that it appears the administration may be getting rid of judges who are not on board with its mass deportation agenda.

Rümeysa Öztürk is seen after arriving home from being unlawfully detained for over six weeks, on May 10, 2025, in East Boston.Matthew J. Lee/Globe Staff

“It’s creating this climate of fear where judges are worried that if they misstep and do something that’s out of line with what the administration wants, they’re more subject to firing,” Patel said. “That can erode judicial independence, it can erode due process, and it can make people more likely to be ordered removed from this country.”

Patel ruled in January that the Department of Homeland Security had not met its burden to prove Öztürk’s removability, according to documents that Öztürk’s team submitted in federal court.

Patel told the Globe that although she had seen reports about Öztürk’s case on the news, this did not affect how she approached the case. “It was very important to me to treat her case with the same level of importance that I treat every other case,” Patel said. “It is just about deciding the case in front of you fairly.”

The Department of Homeland Security is appealing Patel’s decision in Öztürk’s case to the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative court, documents filed in federal court show.

Öztürk came to the attention of the federal government after writing an op-ed in the university newspaper that urged the school to listen to undergraduate students who had passed a set of pro-Palestinian resolutions. She was detained in March 2025 after the government silently revoked her visa and transferred her to a detention center in Louisiana, where she was held for six weeks.

Her detainment — along with the arrests of other students — sparked indignation among civil rights activists, legal experts, and immigration advocates who contended that Öztürk was targeted for exercising her free speech rights.

The Globe’s reporting found that the government‘s own investigation found no evidence that she engaged in antisemitic activity or made any statements in support of a terrorist group.

Still, the government is continuing to fight her cases in immigration court and in federal courts, alleging that she has been associated with activist groups on campus.

In a statement to the Globe, DHS doubled down on its decision to appeal Patel’s order to end Öztürk’s deportation proceedings.

“This was more judicial activism at its core to keep a terrorist sympathizer in this country. We are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” a DHS spokesperson said on Sunday. “The Trump administration has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism – think again.”

Immigration authorities arrested Mahdawi, a green card holder, in Vermont in April 2025, and he spent more than two weeks detained there.

The judge, Nina Froes, told the Globe Sunday that she was not aware of who Mahdawi was when his case came before her, and only found out later. “I had never heard his name,” Froes said.

But like Patel, she said it wouldn’t have mattered if she was familiar with Mahdawi. “It’s not a question of him or his politics. It’s a question of the case before me,” Froes said.

The federal government has also appealed Froes’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, according to court documents submitted by Mahdawi‘s legal team.

Froes said her dismissal has been a major disappointment, “personally and professionally.”

“I really enjoyed what I did. . . .I always did the best that I could,” Froes said. “I’m definitely not happy about the outcome, but there’s really nothing I can do about it at this point.”

Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio can be reached at giulia.mcdnr@globe.com. Follow her @giuliamcdnr.