Immigration Judiciary Purge: 113 Judges Fired Without Due Process, Including Two Who Ruled for Student Activists

What Happened

Since January 2025, the Trump administration has systematically dismantled the independence of the U.S. immigration court system by firing over 113 immigration judges — more dismissals in a single year than in the entire prior history of the courts. Unlike judges in Article III courts, immigration judges serve within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) under the Department of Justice, making them structurally subordinate to the executive branch. The administration has exploited this structural vulnerability to purge judges whose rulings conflict with its deportation agenda.

The firings reached a defining moment on April 10, 2026, when the administration fired two Massachusetts judges weeks after they had dismissed deportation cases against pro-Palestinian student activists. No reason was given; press reports linked the timing to those rulings.

The Targeted Judges

Judge Roopal Patel (Boston Immigration Court) had dismissed the government's case against Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national and Tufts University PhD student who had been detained by plainclothes ICE agents in March 2025. Öztürk's detention drew widespread condemnation; she had authored a co-signed op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper criticizing the university's handling of the Gaza conflict. In January 2026, Judge Patel ruled that the government had no grounds to deport her.

Judge Nina Froes (Boston Immigration Court) had dismissed the government's case against Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian lawful permanent resident and Columbia University student who had been a visible leader of pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations. Mahdawi was detained by federal agents during what he had been told was an immigration interview. In February 2026, Judge Froes found that the Department of Homeland Security had not proved its case and blocked his deportation.

Both judges were fired about two months after issuing those rulings. No reason was given. Inside Higher Ed, citing The New York Times, noted that both were Biden appointees whose asylum grant rates (41.5% and 33%) were well above the 18% average, and Judge Froes said she "fully expected" her dismissal given how many judges had already been fired. The retaliatory motive is therefore inferred from timing, not established.

The Scale of the Purge

By April 14, 2026, 113 immigration judges had been fired since January 2025. The National Association of Immigration Judges stated that individual firings of this magnitude were "very rare" before Trump's return to office — the historical baseline was near zero. The administration has offered no stated cause, no due process, and no explanation for any of the 113 terminations.

The practical effect is to empty the immigration court system of judges willing to rule against the government. Judges who dismiss government cases — or who apply legal standards that result in denied deportation orders — now face the demonstrated risk of immediate termination. This creates a powerful chilling effect: remaining judges face institutional pressure to rule in the administration's favor or lose their positions.

The Öztürk and Mahdawi Cases

The cases of Rümeysa Öztürk and Mohsen Mahdawi are emblematic of a broader pattern: immigration enforcement deployed against students and activists for constitutionally protected speech and association. Neither student was accused of criminal conduct. Both were targeted for their political expression regarding the Gaza conflict.

Why This Matters

Judicial Independence as a Due Process Requirement

Independent adjudication is not a procedural nicety — it is a constitutional and international legal requirement. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Due process requires a neutral decision-maker. A court system whose judges are removed when their rulings displease the executive cannot provide neutral adjudication.

For immigration respondents — many of whom face deportation to countries where they may be tortured, imprisoned, or killed — the stakes of an impartial hearing are existential.

UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, endorsed by the General Assembly, state that judges shall not be removed except for "proved incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties" and that such proceedings "shall be subject to an independent review." The administration's firings meet neither standard.

Chilling Effect on All Remaining Judges

The firing of Judges Patel and Froes, weeks after their rulings, sends an unmistakable message to every remaining immigration judge: ruling against the government in a high-profile political case is grounds for termination. This chilling effect operates regardless of how many judges are actually fired — the threat alone is sufficient to compromise judicial independence.

A System Designed for Deportation, Not Adjudication

The cumulative effect of 113 firings, rocket dockets, mass remote hearings, and retaliatory terminations is to convert the immigration court system into a deportation-processing pipeline. Courts that were constitutionally required to provide independent review of government action increasingly function as extensions of the executive's enforcement machinery.