CHELMSFORD — George Pappas, who was terminated from the Chelmsford Immigration Court in 2025, has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Department of Justice of orchestrating what he has described as a politically driven purge of immigration judges across the country.
The complaint alleges discrimination based on national origin, age, and political association, and challenges what Pappas calls an “unprecedented” DOJ claim that immigration judges may be fired at will under Article 2 of the Constitution.
Pappas, a Greek-American attorney and longtime immigration practitioner, has said his July 2025 termination from the Chelmsford Immigration Court was not only unlawful but part of what he views as a deliberate effort by senior leadership at the DOJ and the Executive Office for Immigration Review to undermine the independence of the immigration courts and replace judges perceived as insufficiently aligned with the Trump administration’s enforcement agenda.
According to the lawsuit, Pappas — who is currently practicing law in North Carolina — consistently received the highest performance ratings available during his two‑year term. In a March 2025 probationary report, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge David Cheng wrote that Pappas “consistently completes cases efficiently and in a timely manner” and “shows a strong willingness to learn and applies feedback effectively.”
Despite those reviews, the EOIR informed him on July 11 that his appointment would not be converted to a permanent position — a routine step for judges who complete their two‑year term. He was placed on administrative leave and terminated 11 days later.
When Pappas filed an internal discrimination complaint, the DOJ dismissed it, asserting that immigration judges are “inferior officers” who can be removed at will under Article 2. The lawsuit describes that position as a sweeping reinterpretation of executive power that, if accepted, would “strip broad classes of employees of protection under the antidiscrimination laws.”
The complaint also outlines what is described as a broader pattern of removals targeting judges with backgrounds in immigrant advocacy, nonprofit legal work, or asylum representation.
According to the lawsuit, senior Trump‑administration officials played a direct role in shaping the policies that preceded the removals.
The filing cites department‑wide memoranda issued in early 2025 by then‑Attorney General Pamela Bondi and then‑Acting EOIR Director Sirce Owen announcing the end of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives. It also notes that Bondi and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller had publicly accused immigrant‑rights organizations and attorneys of committing immigration fraud and labeled them extremists.
Additional memoranda issued by Owen in February and March 2025 criticized the prior administration’s hiring practices and alleged that individuals of “certain backgrounds” had been given favorable treatment, stating that EOIR was “committed to rectifying those harms.”
The lawsuit further alleges that, even as the DOJ’s fiscal 2026 budget authorized the hiring of up to 800 immigration judges, EOIR “terminated a disproportionate number of people of color, ethnic minorities, and persons associated therewith,” a pattern the filing says coincided with the policy memoranda issued by senior leadership.
Pappas argues these memos signaled hostility toward judges who had represented immigrants — including himself, who spent two decades in private practice and provided pro bono services to multiple immigrant‑rights organizations.
Among the 38 judges appointed in July 2023, the lawsuit states that roughly 20 were not converted to permanent positions.
According to the filing, every judge in that cohort with a Hispanic, Middle Eastern or South Asian surname was terminated, and many were over 40.
Judges with prosecutorial or law‑enforcement backgrounds, meanwhile, were retained.
“Who wasn’t fired?” Pappas told The Sun shortly after his termination. “Judges who were previously attorneys with (the Department of Homeland Security), former prosecutors, those formerly in law enforcement.”
As those judges were being removed, the DOJ began advertising new positions for what it now calls “deportation judges” — including openings in Boston and Chelmsford, the same courts where Pappas served. The listings, posted on join.justice.gov, offer salaries between $159,951 and $207,500 and include a 25% salary incentive for first‑time federal employees willing to take positions in Massachusetts, New York, California, and other regions with high turnover.
The job page features a banner reading “You Be The Judge” and invites applicants to “help write the next chapter of America.”
Pappas has previously publicly described a deteriorating environment inside the Chelmsford courthouse, where he said judges were pressured to rule in ways that aligned with the Trump administration’s enforcement priorities.
He said supervisory judges pushed him and others to grant motions to dismiss cases — knowing that once a case was dismissed, the respondent could be immediately detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and placed in expedited removal.
He also described ICE officers making regular appearances in the courthouse and judges operating under fear of termination.
“The court now is in freefall,” he told The Sun following his firing. “It’s been decimated.”
The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the union representing immigration judges, has reported in July that more than 100 judges had been fired or resigned since Trump returned to office. Pappas argues the administration is intentionally shrinking the courts’ capacity while expanding enforcement, creating a crisis that could be used to justify bypassing due process.
He previously pointed to Trump’s Truth Social post in April 2025, in which the president wrote, “We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years.”
The lawsuit further alleges discrimination based on his Greek national origin, his age of 68, and his association with Hispanic and Latin American communities. The lawsuit also claims he was targeted because of his political affiliation, including his work with immigrant‑rights organizations, and argues that his removal was justified through an overbroad Article 2 theory that would allow the executive branch to dismiss immigration judges without cause.
According to the complaint, he seeks reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and a declaration that the DOJ violated federal civil‑rights laws.
The DOJ did not respond to requests for comment.
Pappas referred questions to his attorneys, who were not immediately available.
Follow Aaron Curtis on X @aselahcurtis, or on Bluesky @aaronscurtis.bsky.social.