The Brief

For three immigration judges, the day took a similar turn.

Kyra Lilien, who was hired in 2023, was presiding in a courtroom in Concord, Calif., in July when she paused the hearing of an immigrant seeking asylum to read an email.

"I told them that we were not going to have a hearing because I had just been fired," Lilien said. Present in the court was a court interpreter and an attorney for the Department of Homeland Security. "They asked me if I was joking."

Anam Petit, who was hired as an immigration judge in 2023 after a career in immigrant defense, was sitting on the bench in her courtroom in Virginia's Annandale Immigration Court in September. It was her two-year anniversary in the position and she was between hearings when she got the email.

"My voice was shaking. My hands were shaking. My mind was racing. And I gave the decision and I dismissed everyone without mentioning anything," Petit said. One decision that day was to deny asylum, and the other was a partial denial, each for a different member of one immigrant family, she recalled.

Tania Nemer was hired as a judge at the Cleveland immigration court in 2023. She had about 30 or 40 immigrants, a DHS attorney and staff in her court one morning in February. She had just finished explaining rights and responsibilities to the group when her door opened and her manager asked her to come with him. She was later escorted out of the building.

"I didn't know at all why I was being fired at the time. And I kept asking; no one had a reason," Nemer said.

Nemer was one of the first immigration judges fired by the Trump administration after a slew of dismissals of leaders at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the branch of the Justice Department that houses immigration courts. Later that month, the administration fired 12 judges — an entire incoming class that had just been trained and was about to take the bench.

Those dismissals come as the administration has ramped up mass deportations of those without legal status, and sometimes pointed to judges as obstacles in that effort.

The pattern has been consistent. Every few months this year, a new class of judges gets termination notices in the middle of the day, often while they are in the middle of immigration court proceedings. The notices often target those who have reached the end of their two-year probationary period, a trial period for federal workers before they are "converted" to permanent employees. It was previously common for these civil servants to be converted to permanent employees of the DOJ.

"None of us have been given an explanation, we are in the dark, but we've been trying to ascertain patterns," Lilien said, the former judge in northern California. She wonders if her past experience representing immigrants got her fired, even though she also worked at DHS as an asylum officer.

Her hunch has some correlation with the data. NPR has independently identified 70 immigration judges who received termination notices from the Trump administration between February and October. The number of judges who received termination letters matches the tally kept by the immigration judges' union. It also accords with NPR's past coverage of the terminations.

The count does not include assistant chief immigration judges (ACIJ), who are courthouse supervisors and also have their own dockets. The union has counted 11 ACIJs terminated.

An analysis of each of the 70 immigration judges' professional backgrounds found that judges with backgrounds defending immigrants, and no prior work history at DHS, made up about 44% of the firings — more than double the share of those who had only prior work history at DHS.

NPR also analyzed the classes of judges onboarded between February 2023 and November 2024, who would have neared the ends of their probationary periods this year or are still in the probationary period. Of those judges, those who had prior DHS experience, including working as asylum officers and as attorneys for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, made up the largest share still on the bench.

NPR reached out to the DOJ, EOIR and the White House for a comment on the firings and NPR's findings. The press staff at EOIR is furloughed due to the ongoing federal government shutdown, according to automatic email replies, though immigration courts are still operational. The White House referred questions to the DOJ.

"DOJ doesn't 'target' or 'prioritize' immigration judges for any personnel decision one way or the other based on prior experience," a DOJ spokesperson told NPR in a statement. "DOJ continually evaluates all immigration judges, regardless of background, on factors such as conduct, impartiality/bias, adherence to the law, productivity/performance, and professionalism."

The spokesperson added that, "pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, IJs (Immigration Judges) are inferior officers who are appointed and removed by the Attorney General."

The spokesperson disputed the 70 count, saying the agency has terminated fewer than 55 judges, but was unable to provide more details. The agency's number is inconsistent with other news reports, NPR's prior reporting and the union. NPR reached out to reconcile the numbers. The DOJ spokesperson said staff have been furloughed and the Justice Department is not able to confirm their data.

Folders containing documents related to immigration cases are piled on a table in the office of Stephen Born, Esq. on July 31, 2025 in Everett, Mass.

(

Meredith Nierman

/

NPR

)

Employees search for reasons

Fired judges have been grasping at straws to understand why they were fired — some have filed Freedom of Information Act requests. Others have turned to wrongful termination complaints and lawsuits. Some worry they were targeted on the basis of protected classes, such as gender or race.

"I fit the bill," said Nemer, who had represented immigrants prior to becoming an immigration judge. Nemer listed off characteristics cited in a lawsuit she has filed, arguing she was fired based on various protected classes.

"It's hard to know without having the explanations of why judges were fired," said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on immigration policy. "But the way the Trump administration is approaching immigration courts reflects a really high prioritization of immigration enforcement and [the administration] has really made deportations this whole-of-government effort."

Immigration judges approve or deny a final order of deportation. Court officials have placed pressure on judges to move through their dockets faster, including by reviewing asylum cases without hearings.

Each fired judge can leave behind thousands of cases, according to several interviews with fired judges throughout the year. Each case is an immigrant who has likely already waited years for their day in court, to make the case for why they should be allowed to stay in the U.S.

Many of these cases have now been reassigned to other judges, at the bottom of their already years-long dockets. Immigrants whose cases were already in progress, or set to be reviewed soon, now have new dates as far out as 2029.

There were 700 immigration judges at the start of the year. Over the past 10 months, EOIR has lost more than 125 judges to firings and voluntary resignations. Earlier this year, Republicans in Congress approved a spending bill that allocated over $3 billion to the Justice Department for immigration-related activities, including the hiring of more immigration judges, to address the backlog of millions of cases at immigration court.

Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in June 2025 in New York City.

(

Spencer Platt

/

Getty Images

)

Fear of retribution

Probationary judges aren't the only ones who have been fired under the Trump administration. NPR tracked 12 fired judges who started prior to 2023. This means they were fired after their two-year probationary period.

Some have been left wondering if their firings were retribution for the decisions they made on the bench.

Shira Levine had worked for EOIR since 2021 before being fired in September. She was presiding over a hearing for an immigrant who had already waited more than five years for a day in court when she got the email.

"People looked surprised, but no one looked shocked," Levine said. "That's because, unfortunately, this by that point had become a pattern." She said she didn't expect to be removed since she had passed her two-year mark. She was never given a reason.

Levine, like several others, received a standard email that they were being terminated pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution, which gives the executive the power to dismiss federal employees.

Levine thought she might have been dismissed because of her response to some recent Trump administration policies.

During the summer months, immigration judges had already had to contend with an outsized enforcement presence in normally empty courtroom hallways. ICE attorneys — who argue on behalf of a government that an immigrant should be deported — started more regularly filing "motions to dismiss" cases. When a judge granted such a motion, migrants would be detained before leaving the building.

Levine said such motions should be granted if there is a change in the individual migrant's case, not a change in immigration policy.

"I was not told it was because of my decision to deny the motion to dismiss that I was fired," Levine said. "But I handed down a decision that contravened what they apparently wanted the judges to do."

Others, like Ila Deiss or Emmett Soper, who had been immigration judges since 2017 and 2016, served as career officials at the DOJ for nearly two decades.

Soper had been with EOIR since graduating law school in a variety of other roles. He doesn't know if his firing had anything to do with past policy work under the Biden administration's EOIR director or his handling of cases as a judge.

As the Trump administration brings in new people to the bench, he has concerns over the loss of experienced judges.

"You have to be able to manage your courtroom and you have to make very difficult, sometimes life-or-death decisions, with the person whose life is going to be affected and the family members sometimes right in front of you," Soper said.

"It's not something that you pick up right away. And with all of these judges — many of whom are very experienced — being fired, the agency is losing something that will take a long time to get back, if they ever can."

People wait outside an immigration court and ICE field office on Oct. 24, 2025, in San Francisco.

(

Minh Connors

/

AP

)

Prior political interference

The agency is prioritizing other judges to hire.

The Trump administration has moved to bring back immigration judges it sees as unfairly fired by the Biden administration. The Justice Department, in a February memo, said that it cannot be confident the Biden administration was ethical and lawful in how it dismissed immigration judges and other adjudicators.

A handful of judges in 2022 had not been converted to permanent employment, sparking GOP outrage over what lawmakers saw as political interference.

Earlier this year, Matthew O'Brien and David White, two of those judges let go under President Joe Biden, were reinstated at immigration courts in Virginia. O'Brien was brought back to a managerial position, as NPR previously reported — though he is no longer with EOIR. White is a judge at the Falls Church court.

The Justice Department appointed a new director of EOIR, Daren Margolin, in October. Margolin has previous experience as the assistant chief immigration judge, or courthouse supervisor, throughout multiple courts in California, and a background as a military and DHS lawyer. He had been fired from a command position at a Marine base for negligently firing a gun and had left EOIR in 2024 before returning to lead the agency.

Then the DOJ last month announced its first class of 2025, which included 25 temporary judges who are military lawyers.

"EOIR is restoring its integrity as a preeminent administrative adjudicatory agency," the announcement states. "These new immigration judges are joining an immigration judge corps that is committed to upholding the rule of law."

The incoming class of permanent judges comprises mostly those with a background in federal government work, including EOIR itself and the Department of Homeland Security. Their previous jobs included training Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents, serving as asylum officers and working for ICE's legal arm.

One judge was originally going to take the bench at the start of the year, but was among the initial class of judges fired before they could start. None of the incoming judges appear to have previously worked in the field of immigrant defense based on EOIR's announcement.

Immigration judges' backgrounds vary over time

In recent years, immigration judges' backgrounds have varied. Many came to the position after several years working for ICE's legal branch. Others became judges after working for immigrant defense nonprofits or in private practice. Some have no immigration law experience, which was previously a requirement for temporary judges but not for permanent ones.

When immigration courts were first established, it was more common for immigration judges to have an enforcement background, said Dana Leigh Marks, a former immigration judge and immigration attorney who litigated landmark immigration cases before the Supreme Court.

Marks joined the court in 1987, when courts were still under the former Immigration and Naturalization Service branch of the DOJ.

"Frankly, I was one of the individuals who was hired to show that it wasn't just a career path of prosecution that led you to be eligible to be an immigration judge," Marks said.

That push for professional diversification carried through the Biden administration. That administration selected as immigration judges not just immigration attorneys, but also criminal defense attorneys, other administrative judges across the federal government, and those with military experience, as it sought to diversify the perspectives of those interpreting the complicated set of immigration laws.

Marks said that the president and his cabinet will continue to affect personnel decisions as long as these courts stay in the executive branch.

"It's common sense that the boss of the prosecutor should not be the boss of the judge," Marks said, recalling the fight to keep immigration courts separate from immigration enforcement when DHS was created in 2002. Enforcement, which is primarily ICE, was separated from the DOJ.

—NPR's Rahul Mukherjee contributed to data analysis for this story.
Copyright 2025 NPR

Southern California summers aren’t exactly known for mugginess.

But uncharacteristic humidity has been clinging to the region for almost a month, and it looks like there’s little relief coming our way.

It’s not enough moisture to create much, if any, rain, but it is abnormal for this time of year

The dew point in Southern California is normally around 60 degrees at this time of year, forecasters say. But in downtown Los Angeles yesterday, the dew point hit almost 70 degrees.

Scientists say humidity generally becomes uncomfortable in the summer when the dew point is higher than 65.

“We do get these prolonged periods of heat, but what is unusual is the humidity,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Bryan Lewis.

So, what’s causing this mugginess?

A confluence of atmospheric forces, some hundreds or even thousands of miles away, is collecting and trapping moisture in Southern California.

“It's basically the combination of the warm ocean temperatures, as well as we've just been in the right pattern for some tropical moisture" to be sent our way, Lewis said.

Storms in the Pacific

Storms are to blame, at least in part, for the uncharacteristic humidity in the region this summer.

Two in particular have contributed to moisture levels in Southern California as they traveled across the Pacific Ocean in recent weeks.

Tropical Storm Fausto formed off of Central America earlier this month before moving off into the open ocean and moving toward Hawaii. It briefly was elevated to a Category 2 hurricane over the weekend before weakening again into a tropical storm.

Fausto is expected to continue weakening as it passes to the north of the Hawaiian Islands over the next few days.

The other, stronger storm, Hurricane Genevieve, also formed off the coast of Central America and has been moving relatively parallel to the Mexican coast, several hundred miles offshore.

Genevieve was elevated to a Category 5 hurricane on Monday.

The storms aren’t solely responsible for sending moisture hundreds of miles across the ocean.

Other weather patterns closer to home, including the system of high pressure air currently settled over the Western U.S. and the North American monsoon, siphon the tropical moisture from the storms into our region.

Thankfully, forecasters say, Hurricane Genevieve is not expected to create as much moisture as Fausto and other recent tropical storms.

Warming oceans

Forecasters also say warming ocean temperatures are adding to the humidity.

When the ocean is warmer than usual, the wind blowing inland off the water is also warmer. The warm seawater also evaporates faster, releasing more moisture into the air above it. That moisture is then carried inland by the wind.

Ocean warming is not new in Southern California, but it’s getting worse.

The region has been hit with a series of marine heatwaves over the last decade. They generally recede during the winter, but the current one has lasted for over a year. Scientists say these ocean heatwaves are likely being worsened by human-caused climate change.

But there is some short-term hope on the horizon for humidity-haters.

One, Hurricane Genevieve is not expected to pull as much moisture into our region as other recent weather patterns. And two, forecasters expect drier air to flow in from the northwest, cutting down the humidity a bit, especially inland.

That may not reach people who live along the coast, however, where the higher ocean temperatures will help keep the coastal humidity elevated, especially at night.

Los Angeles-area eviction lawyer Dennis Block has agreed to one year of probation after the California State Bar Court found he violated a court order and engaged in other misconduct.

The decision came through a stipulation — similar to a settlement agreement with the court — in which Block admitted to charging clients improper fees, representing a landlord and their tenant at the same time, signing off on an error-filled court document a junior attorney in his firm generated using ChatGPT and failing to pay court-ordered sanctions for nearly three years.

LAist first reported on these disciplinary charges in January.

Block, who runs a firm that claims to have evicted hundreds of thousands of tenants, is expected to be placed on probation for one year. He will also be required to take classes on ethics and proper handling of client funds if the State Bar Court’s recommendation is approved by the California Supreme Court.

The State Bar Court recommended Block be suspended from practicing law for one year, but allowed the suspension be stayed as long as he complies with ethics rules and his probation conditions.

David Bramante is one of the clients who reported Block to the bar. He said he paid Block $17,000 up front to work on a court motion that needed to be taken care of quickly.

“The Ellis Act work I paid for never got done,” Bramante told LAist. “And when I terminated him, his office wouldn't give me a real accounting of where the money went.”

Bramante said it was only after many months and the State Bar’s investigation that Block’s firm refunded him the money.

Three legal ethics experts told LAist the disciplinary actions the bar recommended against Block are in line with similar cases they have seen in the past.

“This is a pretty serious sanction,” Scott Cummings, a UCLA law professor who teaches legal ethics, told LAist.

Cummings said suspension and disbarment are the two highest forms of discipline given by the bar.

Even though the suspension is being stayed in this case — because Block cooperated with State Bar investigators and has had a long career without disciplinary issues — Cummings said it seems like the bar is sending a message to Block and other attorneys that they need to treat their clients’ interests and money with the highest level of care.

Still, others think the court didn’t go far enough.

Richard Zitrin, an emeritus lecturer with UC Law San Francisco, called it a “slap on the wrist" considering the level of wrongdoing in the case.

“The failure to suspend Mr. Block is letting him get away with clearly unethical conduct that harms his clients,” Zitrin told LAist.

Other clients who were not involved with the bar’s investigation also claimed they had negative experiences with Block’s firm.

Xavier Jones said he hired Block’s firm for a few months in 2025. He told LAist there were no issues at first. Then, he said he saw Block’s attorneys start coming to court unprepared for his case. He said he also felt Block was overbilling him for the firm’s services.

Block would hang up on him when he asked legal questions or about how much he was being billed, Jones said. He said there were two times the firm’s lawyers came to court without having a copy of the tenants’ lease, which he says he sent them.

“I'm paying for this, for them to show up, for them to do their back-end work,” Jones said. “It's just unprofessional, it's embarrassing, and it's costing me a lot of money.”

Jones said he stopped working with Block in November. He said he had lost about $70,000 in unpaid rent, legal fees and other costs he believes could have been avoided with proper legal assistance.

LAist reached out to Block and his attorneys this week for comment, but did not receive a response. Last month, Erin Joyce — Block’s defense attorney — told LAist that the State Bar Court’s investigation into her client was “thorough” and found “no conduct by the firm involved moral turpitude,” which had been alleged in the original charges.

A year ago at this time, the streets of Los Angeles and other American cities were the sites of highly visible, large-scale immigration raids. While those scenes have died down, immigration enforcement remains more quietly active.

Federal data show Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained more people in June, at 43,000, than in any month since January 2025. Locally, Los Angeles Police Department officials say June had the highest tally of potential unlawful conduct by federal immigration officers. The 12 incidents investigated mark the most since the department began reporting the data in March.

German Hurtado, LAPD immigration affairs liaison, said in an interview that he noticed the uptick of reported immigration enforcement incidents, but could not say what caused the increase.

In February, Mayor Karen Bass issued a directive requiring the reporting. Police commissioners approved the most recent report at their meeting Tuesday.

Hurtado said the increase seen in June might be reflective of the department’s efforts to capture more of the potential issues.

“We’re finding better ways to improve how to capture these incidents,” Hurtado said. “It could be a combination of everything, but I did see that it was a large increase.”

He said those efforts include changes in how they label calls related to federal immigration enforcement actions and adjustments to the way department computers store the information.

What’s in June’s report

Here’s how that process worked, according to the department’s report:

The LAPD first identified 45 potential federal immigration enforcement actions by searching internal reporting systems for immigration related search terms. The immigration affairs liaison determined 33 of those incidents were unrelated to immigration enforcement.

At the commission's meeting on Tuesday, Lisa Ridoutt, assistant inspector general, explained these incidents included:

• 26 notices from federal agents conducting surveillance in the area
• 2 reports of protests
• 2 medical related incidents
• 1 report of DHS agents executing a search warrant unrelated to immigration
• 1 federal task force meeting
• 1 call reporting someone believed they were pushed from behind by a federal agent. LAPD reviewed security footage and determined no crime had occurred.

The department then looked deeper into 12 enforcement incidents that qualify for reporting under Bass’ executive directive, which asks the LAPD to report when officers document or receive reports of suspected unlawful conduct by immigration officers. Two of those incidents involved an LAPD response in the field, according to the report. The department also says neither resulted in officers being on the scene for an active enforcement action.

The report states the LAPD does not know the overall number of immigration enforcement actions that happened in June.

The 12 reported incidents are a significant increase from previous months. The department reported just four incidents in May, four in April and none in March.

Hurtado said the number of incidents has increased every month since March, potentially because the department is getting better at documenting them.

“It takes a while to teach 8,700 people exactly what to do, so as we are rolling out different training, the officers are now being more observant of it, documenting it more," Hurtado said.

The increase, he added, could also stem from federal authorities communicating with LAPD more. He said federal immigration authorities have not asked LAPD for support during enforcement actions.

The backstory

For decades, the LAPD has refrained from directly enforcing immigration laws. That’s because policing experts say doing so could deter witnesses or victims from cooperating with law enforcement.

State and local laws have codified that policy in recent years and further prohibited California law enforcement from assisting in federal immigration enforcement.

The mayor issued two executive orders last year with instructions for how city departments interact with federal immigration officers.

Executive directive 17 mandates the monthly immigration reports from the LAPD and instructs officers to activate their body-worn cameras whenever they respond to potential immigration-related incidents.

Ridoutt, of the Office of Inspector General, said that while officers did activate body-worn and in-car video systems, the OIG found some recordings were not properly titled or tagged and that some videos or photos from community members were not uploaded to the department’s evidence database as required by department policy.

The Inspector General’s Office reviews the LAPD’s reports to ensure compliance with the directive. Ridoutt said the office will be releasing a more comprehensive report in October or November.

Calls for increased transparency

At previous meetings, commissioners have asked for more details about what calls for service or incident reports entail.

Hurtado said the executive directive just requires the department to release aggregate numbers.

Shiu-Ming Cheer, deputy director of immigrant and racial justice at the California Immigrant Policy Center, said the directive calls for greater transparency than what the LAPD’s monthly reports currently provide.

The June report, for example, notes that LAPD twice dispatched officers in response to a report of ICE activity, but provides no description of the department’s role once officers arrived. Cheer said the public should know whether officers were responding for crowd control, interacting with federal agents or serving some other purpose.

Cheer said the LAPD’s monthly reports should explain what happened during the incidents the department counts.

Sophia Wrench, an attorney with Public Counsel, agrees.

“A central purpose of Executive Directive 17 was to provide increased transparency and build public trust, but LAPD’s reporting month after month falls short,” she said in a statement. “The lack of information in its monthly reports only creates more confusion in the community, building greater fear and mistrust of the police.”