A former Bay Area immigration judge is taking her old boss, the U.S. Department of Justice, to court, claiming her removal from the bench was both discriminatory and political. Kyra Lilien, who sat at the Concord Immigration Court, says she received strong performance reviews and high productivity marks but was told last year she would not be converted to a permanent appointment. Her complaint asks a federal judge to reinstate her and award back pay, damages and attorney fees.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Lilien filed the lawsuit on May 1 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, naming the Department of Justice and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. The suit alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the First Amendment, and says Lilien’s termination “was motivated in whole or in part” by the fact that she is a woman, speaks Spanish, is over 40, is a registered Democrat and has ties to immigrant-advocacy groups.
KTVU reports that Lilien was appointed to the San Francisco bench in July 2023 and transferred to the Concord court in 2024. Her lawsuit says she routinely received top performance reviews and that she was told in July 2025 her probationary term would not be extended, despite on-time adjudication rates and favorable evaluations.
The filing points to internal memoranda from the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the DOJ that critics say targeted DEI-style hiring and flagged attorneys with immigrant-rights backgrounds for extra scrutiny. As ABC News reported, the complaint argues that those memos were then used to justify non-conversions and reassignments of judges.
Impact on Bay Area Courts
The departures have immediate local consequences: the region’s larger immigration courtroom recently closed and more dockets have been shifted to smaller sites, ramping up pressure on the Concord bench that handled many San Francisco cases. NBC Bay Area has reported that the consolidation risks creating backlogs and making scheduling harder for attorneys and respondents who relied on the downtown San Francisco location.
Legal Claims and What Lilien Is Asking For
Lilien is seeking reinstatement to the bench, back pay, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and a court declaration that the DOJ’s actions violated the Constitution; she has also requested a jury trial. The department previously dismissed her administrative discrimination complaint in February 2026, saying the attorney general has Article II authority to remove immigration judges, a decision noted in coverage by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Similar lawsuits have appeared around the country as more than 100 immigration judges have been removed or not converted following policy shifts, and several former judges have said they believe personnel moves are politically driven. ABC News and local reporting show multiple pending cases alleging wrongful termination or discrimination in different districts.
The case now sits in federal court in San Francisco; Lilien and her attorneys say the suit is meant to test whether the Justice Department’s personnel decisions crossed legal lines and to push back on what they describe as a broader campaign to reshape the immigration bench. Local legal groups and immigration advocates say they will be watching the proceedings for signs of how staffing changes could alter asylum dockets and case timelines.
