The notices went out quietly. No press conference. No dramatic announcement. Just a brief, three-line email delivered with bureaucratic efficiency. But the message was unmistakable: the era of activist immigration judges sabotaging U.S. immigration law from the bench is over.
Roughly 50 federal immigration judges have now been dismissed as President Donald Trump continues his second-term campaign to restore law and order — not just at the border, but inside the immigration court system itself. The move comes despite the staggering three-million-case backlog created during the Biden years, a backlog fueled in no small part by judges who routinely obstructed deportations and expanded protections for illegal immigrants far beyond the scope of the law.
Predictably, the judges being shown the door are crying foul.
Activists in Robes Cry “Retaliation”
Freed from the constraints of judicial decorum, several former immigration judges are now rushing to the media, claiming they were targeted for political reasons, discrimination, or even personal vendettas. The common thread in these complaints? None involve misconduct or incompetence — at least not as defined by the judges themselves.
Jennifer Peyton, an Obama-era appointee who joined the bench in 2016, says she was on vacation with her family when the termination email arrived. No formal discipline. Positive performance reviews. And yet, she was dismissed.
Peyton has floated several theories to explain her removal, including scrutiny from conservative watchdog groups and even a courthouse tour she once gave to Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and has been one of Trump’s most vocal antagonists, quickly labeled the move an “abuse of power.”
From the outside, however, it looks less like abuse and more like accountability.
For years, immigration courts became a parallel political system — one where judges openly defied enforcement priorities, slow-walked cases, and treated deportation orders as optional suggestions. Trump’s move signals that those days are done.
Union Panic Confirms the Reset
The immigration judges’ union — hardly a pro-Trump institution — confirms the scale of the shakeup. According to union president Matt Biggs, approximately 50 judges have been terminated, while another 50 have been transferred, reassigned, or pushed into early retirement.
Biggs claims remaining judges now feel “threatened.”
That sentiment says more than he likely intended.
For decades, immigration judges operated in a system where consequences were rare, ideology was tolerated, and enforcement priorities could be ignored with little fear of reprisal. A sudden sense of accountability can feel like persecution when one is accustomed to impunity.
The Chicago Case That Says It All
Consider the case of Carla Espinoza, a short-term immigration judge in Chicago who claims her contract was not renewed due to her gender and Hispanic surname.
But the case she cites as evidence of bias tells a very different story.
Espinoza released a Mexican national who had been flagged by Homeland Security for making threats against the President of the United States. Despite the national security concerns, she dismissed the case, calling the release “fair.”
Now she is outraged that her judicial career was cut short.
What Espinoza frames as discrimination looks far more like consequence. Judges who undermine enforcement, disregard security warnings, or substitute personal ideology for the law should not be surprised when they are removed from positions of immense authority.
This Isn’t About Race — It’s About Results
Critics insist the dismissals are politically motivated. In one sense, they are correct — but not in the way they imply.
Immigration judges are not Article III judges with lifetime appointments. They are executive branch employees tasked with enforcing federal immigration law. When those employees consistently work against the administration’s lawful objectives, the administration is well within its authority to replace them.
The Trump White House has made no secret of its priorities: border security, interior enforcement, and the consistent application of immigration law. Judges who actively frustrate those goals are not neutral arbiters — they are political actors in robes.
This is not about race, gender, or party registration. It is about whether judges view their role as applying the law or reshaping it to fit progressive ideology.
Draining the Swamp, One Courtroom at a Time
For years, conservatives warned that immigration courts had become a sanctuary not just for illegal immigrants, but for activist judges determined to nullify federal law from the inside. Trump’s decisive action suggests that warning was taken seriously — and acted upon.
No one is entitled to a government position forever. Especially not when that position is used to sabotage the very laws it exists to enforce.
The swamp isn’t just in Washington agencies or regulatory boards. Sometimes, it wears a robe and sits behind a bench.
And now, finally, it’s being drained.