Espinoza, who is at least the third ex-immigration court official based in Chicago to initiate legal action against the Trump administration, has made a point of being public about her termination and questioning whether her past record and her race and gender were factors in the decision to let go of her.<\/p>\n
According to the 12-page federal complaint, Espinoza was one of 20 probationary judges from a single 38-judge cohort, appointed in 2023, to be let go just before reaching the end of the two-year trial period.<\/p>\n
Attorney Kevin Owen, who is helping represent Espinoza, said her lawsuit is one of a handful already filed on behalf of other terminated judges in other parts of the country who were allegedly based on their race, sex, nationality or work history with immigrants.<\/p>\n
![\"Former](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/CTC-L-Durbin-judges-10_232037650-e1778004169128.jpg\")
Former immigration judge Carla Espinoza, left, speaks alongside U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and fellow judge Jennifer Peyton, right, on Aug. 4, 2025, at the Chicago Bar Association in Chicago about her termination by the Trump administration. (Brian Cassella\/Chicago Tribune)<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat they all have in common are characteristics, either from their prior employment or perceived political affiliation which do not align with this administration\u2019s view of what an immigration judge should be,\u201d Owen said.<\/p>\n
The suit \u2014 which also challenges the overall constitutional rationale Trump administration officials have used for firing waves of federal employees \u2014 lists Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the U.S. Department of Justice as defendants. Representatives with the Justice Department said the department wouldn\u2019t comment on pending litigation.<\/p>\n
Before she became an immigration judge in July 2023, Espinoza worked as an attorney representing immigrants. According to the \u00a0complaint, she heard more than 1,000 cases during her first year on the bench and focused on the detained docket, which covers people held in custody while their cases are pending.<\/p>\n
In a previous interview with the Tribune, Espinoza recounted getting a series of instructions and messages from the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which runs the country\u2019s immigration courts, that made her question whether she and her colleagues were being pushed to make their decisions based on the priorities of the Trump administration. Some judges had already taken buyouts following the \u201cfork in the road\u201d message to federal employees that rocked the government in the first few weeks of the second term.<\/p>\n
Around the same time, the complaint states that Circe Owen, the then-director of the EOIR, put out memoranda claiming that immigration judges \u201cof certain backgrounds\u201d had been given favorable treatment over other groups. Other memoranda cast immigrant advocacy groups as extremist groups that promoted illegal immigration, the complaint stated.<\/p>\n
Immigration judges typically serve a two-year probationary period, and Espinoza was in the final stretch of that period when she was fired in July 2025. A month before her termination, the complaint notes that she presided over the high-profile case<\/a> of a Wisconsin immigrant, Ramon Morales Reyes, who was wrongly accused of threatening to kill President Donald Trump. Espinoza set bond<\/a> for Morales despite statements from then-DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin that Morales Reyes would remain in custody.<\/p>\n The lawsuit \u2014which points out that about a dozen other probationary judges with with Hispanic, Middle Eastern or South Asian last names or backgrounds in immigrant advocacy were all let go \u2014 alleges that the government moved to fire Espinoza based on her race, sex, nationality, previous work representing immigrants or some combination of those factors. It also alleges that her termination violated her First Amendment rights because Espinoza has been affiliated with organizations that advocate for priorities that run counter to the Trump administration\u2019s interests.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The suit also challenges the basis for the wave of firings that\u2019s become a hallmark of the second Trump administration, where federal officials cite Article II of the Constitution to assert that federal workers like immigration judges can be fired without cause and therefore not subject to equal opportunity protections.<\/p>\n \u201cThe position the administration is taking in these cases should be concerning to everyone,\u201d Owen said. \u201cBecause what they\u2019re saying is, \u2018We can decide, regardless of what the law says, that people have no rights.’\u201d<\/p>\n Owen added that it was difficult to predict the trajectory of the case because the Department of Justice has \u201cstonewalled\u201d on requests for information, but he anticipated that any decisions would be appealed because of the constitutional dispute raised in the complaint around whether immigration judges can be fired without cause.<\/p>\n Espinoza is demanding back pay, benefits and interest, along with compensatory damages, court costs and reinstatement to her old position, the complaint states, as well as a\u00a0declaration that government violated the First Amendment and federal anti-discrimination laws.<\/p>\n As of Tuesday, the case has not yet been assigned to a judge, according to federal court records.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A former Chicago immigration judge has accused the federal government of firing her based on her previous work…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":775485,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5124],"tags":[960,5386,1818,409,1370,50],"class_list":{"0":"post-775484","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-chicago","8":"tag-chicago","9":"tag-il","10":"tag-illinois","11":"tag-immigration","12":"tag-latest-headlines","13":"tag-news"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116523421166597883","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/775484","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=775484"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/775484\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/775485"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=775484"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=775484"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=775484"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}