Judges fired after blocking deportation of pro-Palestinian students
Key Takeaways
- Six immigration judges were terminated by the Department of Justice, including Roopal Patel and Nina Froes.
- Patel and Froes had recently ruled against the administration, blocking deportation efforts in high‑profile cases involving students Rümeysa Öztürk and Mohsen Mahdawi.
- Both judges were appointed in May 2024 and previously worked in immigration defense; it has been reported that analyses suggest the administration is targeting judges with defense backgrounds.
- The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) said it evaluates judges on conduct, impartiality, productivity and professionalism.
What happened
The Department of Justice has terminated six immigration judges, among them Roopal Patel and Nina Froes, who presided over cases that prevented the deportation of two pro‑Palestinian university students. Patel ended removal proceedings against Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts PhD student, after finding the government lacked grounds to deport her; Froes blocked removal of Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi following his arrest at a U.S. citizenship interview. It has been reported that the New York Times first detailed the wave of dismissals, and that the moves came as those judges neared the end of their probationary conversion period.
Legal and institutional context
Immigration judges work for the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), not as Article III federal judges; many serve a probationary period before conversion to permanent status. EOIR said it regularly evaluates judges on impartiality, adherence to law, conduct and productivity, and that it must act if a judge demonstrates systematic bias. Patel and Froes were appointed under the Biden administration in 2024 and had prior experience representing noncitizens — a background EOIR’s statement cited indirectly when describing impartiality standards. It has been reported that an NPR analysis found a pattern of terminations among judges who formerly defended immigrants.
What this means for immigrants and lawyers
For noncitizens, the firings matter in concrete ways: immigration judges decide who may remain, apply for relief (asylum, cancellation, adjustment) or face removal. Removing judges with defense experience could change bench composition and decisionmaking patterns at a moment when courts are already strained by high caseloads and an administration prioritizing removals. For lawyers and respondents, the immediate effects include uncertainty about pending cases, potential delays as new judges are assigned, and concern among advocacy groups about whether rulings that block deportations will be more vulnerable to reversal or appeal. EOIR’s stated standards emphasize neutrality, but affected communities and defense attorneys say the personnel changes will be closely watched for their real‑world impact on removal outcomes.
Source: Original Article