The notifications were sent out discreetly, consisting of merely a three-line email devoid of any fanfare or explanation. Nevertheless, the message was clear: the period of activist immigration judges who undermined the law has concluded.
Approximately 50 federal immigration judges have been dismissed, despite the backlog of over three million cases that has accumulated during the Biden administration. President Donald Trump, now reinstated in the White House, is fulfilling his commitment to restore law and order, not only at the border but also within the courtrooms, as reported by El Pais.
As anticipated, the judges who hindered deportations and granted privileges to undocumented immigrants are voicing their objections. No longer bound by the dignity associated with their previous roles, many are publicly asserting that their dismissals were unjust, retaliatory, or even discriminatory.
Jennifer Peyton, an appointee from the Obama administration who has served on the bench since 2016, stated that she was on vacation with her family when the email arrived. With no disciplinary record and positive evaluations, she was nonetheless removed. She attributes her dismissal to various factors, including conservative watchdogs and a tour she conducted for Democrat Senator Dick Durbin. Durbin, who chairs the Judiciary Committee that has persistently sought to obstruct Trump, characterized her removal as an “abuse of power.” However, from an external perspective, it appears to be the contrary: the swamp is being drained, one bureaucrat at a time.
The union representing immigration judges, which is not particularly known for supporting Trump, reports that around 50 judges have been dismissed, with another 50 either transferred or encouraged to retire. Its president, Matt Biggs, asserts that the remaining judges feel “threatened.” This is the outcome when a bloated bureaucracy accustomed to no repercussions finally encounters a reckoning.
Carla Espinoza, a temporary judge in Chicago, alleges that her contract was not renewed due to her gender and her Hispanic surname. However, the case she primarily references? She released a Mexican national who was falsely accused of threatening the President, a man that Homeland Security had flagged. Espinoza dismissed the case, labeling it as “
In truth, these dismissals may not primarily concern race or gender, but rather decisions that directly opposed the immigration agenda of the Trump administration. Does a judge who aids in the removal of an individual deemed a threat by Homeland Security truly seem surprised by their dismissal? This is not discrimination; it is a matter of consequences.
Erez Reuveni, a former lawyer at the DOJ who previously defended Trump’s immigration policies, now asserts that he was terminated for refusing to categorize a deported Salvadoran as a terrorist — despite acknowledging that the case had been poorly handled. He has become a whistleblower, alleging that DOJ leaders are expediting deportations and overriding judicial authority. However, what he refers to as “manipulation,” millions of Americans would consider a long-overdue efficiency.
Reuveni alleges that senior officials are circumventing judges to expedite deportation flights. One such official, Emil Bove, has recently been confirmed to a federal appeals court by a Senate aligned with Trump. The same Democrats who have spent years weaponizing the judiciary are now in a state of panic as they lose control over it.
These firings, transfers, and confirmations do not signify chaos; they represent a cleanup effort. Trump did not merely pledge to secure the border; he vowed to eliminate the catch-and-release, rubber-stamp culture that has plagued the immigration system. This begins with holding judges accountable who have prioritized their political beliefs over the law.
Some judges may seek to garner public sympathy, portraying themselves as victims of a political purge. However, the reality is that they have functioned for far too long without proper oversight. President Trump is reinstating integrity to a system that has been misused for decades, and those who are now vocal are the very individuals who never anticipated facing accountability.
“One voice can be ignored. But a chorus… that can no longer be silenced,” Reuveni stated.
He is correct — except this time, the chorus does not originate from dismissed judges. It is the American populace demanding a functional system. And at last, thanks to President Trump.
