CHICAGO — A former Chicago immigration judge has accused the federal government of firing her based on her previous work as a lawyer for immigrants as well as her race and sex.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago, attorneys for former Judge Carla Espinoza argued that the Trump administration’s Justice Department violated Espinoza’s First Amendment rights and federal equal rights protections when they terminated her as an immigration judge last July.

She was one of nine judges to leave the Chicago immigration court in a wave of departures, firings and buyouts in the first year of the second Trump administration. All told, the court lost nearly half the judges who were on the bench in January 2025. The turbulence at the city’s immigration court mirrored a nationwide exodus of judges amid a rapidly changing landscape for immigrants, attorneys and advocates.

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.

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.

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.

“What they all have in common are characteristics, either from their prior employment or perceived political affiliation which do not align with this administration’s view of what an immigration judge should be,” Owen said.

The suit — which also challenges the overall constitutional rationale Trump administration officials have used for firing waves of federal employees — lists Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the U.S. Department of Justice as defendants. Representatives with the Justice Department said the department wouldn’t comment on pending litigation.

Before she became an immigration judge in July 2023, Espinoza worked as an attorney representing immigrants. According to the complaint, 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.

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’s 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 “fork in the road” message to federal employees that rocked the government in the first few weeks of the second term.

Around the same time, the complaint states that Circe Owen, the then-director of the EOIR, put out memoranda claiming that immigration judges “of certain backgrounds” had been given favorable treatment over other groups. Other memoranda cast immigrant advocacy groups as extremist groups that promoted illegal immigration, the complaint stated.

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 of a Wisconsin immigrant, Ramon Morales Reyes, who was wrongly accused of threatening to kill President Donald Trump. Espinoza set bond for Morales despite statements from then-DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin that Morales Reyes would remain in custody.

The lawsuit —which 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 — 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’s interests.

The suit also challenges the basis for the wave of firings that’s 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.

“The position the administration is taking in these cases should be concerning to everyone,” Owen said. “Because what they’re saying is, ‘We can decide, regardless of what the law says, that people have no rights.'”

Owen added that it was difficult to predict the trajectory of the case because the Department of Justice has “stonewalled” 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.

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 declaration that government violated the First Amendment and federal anti-discrimination laws.

As of Tuesday, the case has not yet been assigned to a judge, according to federal court records.

____

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.