Nemer v. Bondi
Case Overview
A former immigration judge sued the Department of Justice over AG Pam Bondi's termination of her.
The Facts
The plaintiff served as an immigration judge -- an executive branch officer appointed by the Attorney General under DOJ regulations. Following the change in administration, AG Bondi terminated his appointment. The plaintiff alleged the termination was retaliatory for decisions he had written in favor of asylum applicants and that it violated civil service protections applicable to his GS classification.
The Application
The plaintiff's employment classification is outcome-determinative: if his GS series conferred competitive service status, the AG's removal without documented cause violates the Civil Service Reform Act, and retaliation allegations (termination following asylum-favorable rulings) become substantively relevant to whether removal was pretextual. Conversely, if immigration judges are at-will employees, the AG may terminate based on policy disagreement with the plaintiff's decision pattern, and civil service protections provide no shield. The court must first resolve the classification question, then, if protections apply, assess whether the timing (post-administration change) and motivation (disapproval of asylum grants) satisfy the plaintiff's burden on retaliation.
The Conclusion
If the court holds that the plaintiff was a competitive service employee entitled to for-cause protections, the termination is unlawful absent documented cause and reinstatement is available. If the court holds immigration judges serve at the AG's will and that DOJ may remove them for any lawful reason including their decision patterns, the removal stands and the administration retains broad authority to shape immigration court outcomes through personnel actions.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support