A former immigration judge from Cleveland, Ohio, has initiated legal action against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice, asserting that her abrupt dismissal was influenced by President Donald Trump’s purported belief in a “constitutional right to discriminate against federal workers.” She argues this stance not only ended her career but also poses a future risk to countless others.

Tania Nemer, formerly a prosecutor in the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office and a magistrate in the Akron Municipal Court, alleged that she was fired 15 days after Trump’s inauguration as the 47th president, within her two-year probationary trial period as an immigration judge in the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Nemer’s trial period began in 2023.

Unlike their counterparts in federal district, circuit, and Supreme courts, immigration judges do not enjoy lifetime tenure and belong to the executive branch rather than the judicial. Their appointments are made by the U.S. Attorney General following a comprehensive background check, as outlined here and elaborated here.

During a two-year probationary phase, described by a former EOIR director in his 2008 congressional testimony, immigration judges can be dismissed if they do not consistently exhibit the required skills, professionalism, and demeanor. These evaluations are based on input from court personnel, colleagues, and other relevant parties, culminating in a report submitted to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General five months before the probationary period concludes.

Nemer’s lawsuit claims she was “abruptly fired” roughly two weeks after Trump’s presidency resumed, suggesting the decision was part of a hasty campaign by the administration to oust disfavored civil servants rather than a thorough assessment of her qualifications.

Nemer further contends that her termination was solely due to overt discrimination. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the government’s stance—that Title VII’s anti-discrimination protections in federal employment clash with the President’s Article II powers over the executive branch—essentially posits a constitutional right to discriminate, contravening established laws. The suit highlights this as a significant threat to the civil service framework, warning that a government victory could dismantle the professional and impartial nature of the federal workforce.

“Indeed, in a formal administrative decision issued in this case, the government has concluded that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination in the federal workforce conflicts with the President’s inherent Article II authority to oversee the executive branch. This argument boils down to the remarkable legal theory that the President has a constitutional right to discriminate against federal workers, in violation of the law. That is wrong. Full stop,” said the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “It bears emphasis: The government’s legal theory reflects an unprecedented assault by the current Administration against the civil service laws that protect millions of federal employees. If the government prevails in transforming the law, it will eviscerate the professional, non-partisan civil service as we know it.”

Nemer further alleged that “unlawful discrimination” punished her for being a woman, a “dual citizen of Lebanon, having been born to immigrant parents who moved to this country to pursue the American dream,” and for having run for “judicial office in Ohio as a Democrat.”

According to the plaintiff, not only did her supervisor have glowing things to say about her job performance upon her ouster, the DOJ has said little other than she was removed from her role.

“Far from explaining why she had been fired, Ms. Nemer’s supervisor told her that she was one of his best employees. Prior to being escorted out of the building, both Ms. Nemer’s supervisor and the Acting Chief Immigration Judge of the United States claimed that they both did not know why she was being fired,” the lawsuit continued. “And to this day, the government has failed to offer any coherent and legitimate nondiscriminatory rationale for her termination, in writing or otherwise.”

“Instead, the government has simply said that ‘Ms. Nemer was removed from her position by the Acting Attorney General under the authority of Article II of the United States Constitution,’” the plaintiff continued.

Two months after her firing, Nemer said, she filed a formal discrimination complaint at the “appropriate federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office,” but rather than “fully” investigating her complaint, the complaint was tossed due to Trump’s Article II powers.

The civil complaint said that if this the law then no federal worker is safe — meaning that “the stakes are extraordinary.”

“This is not hypothetical,” the lawsuit added. “It is what happened in this case. Ms. Nemer was discriminated against because of her sex and national origin, in violation of Title VII, and she was discriminated against because she previously ran for office and prominently associated with a political party, in violation of the First Amendment.”

“That unjust proposition is as wrong as it sounds,” the lawsuit concluded, claiming that Nemer is entitled to compensatory damages and reinstatement because her career has been damaged to the point of derailment.

Read the lawsuit here.