An immigration judge recently fired is claiming that her dismissal was politically motivated, sparking controversy and raising questions about the impartiality of the U.S. immigration system.

Judge Kerry Doyle, who was appointed during the Biden administration, was dismissed alongside over 20 other judges by President Donald Trump's administration, leading to concerns about an increased backlog of immigration cases, as Fox News reports.

These dismissals were communicated through an impersonal email from the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which justified the measure by stating that retaining Doyle was "not in the best interest of the agency."

Immigration Judges Face Job Insecurity

Unlike federal judges who benefit from lifetime appointments confirmed by the Senate, immigration judges such as Doyle do not enjoy the same level of job protection.

Consequently, they remain vulnerable to changes in administration, as demonstrated by the recent wave of firings.

According to Doyle, her termination was unequivocally political, an assertion she shared in an interview with local media. The prospect of politically charged decisions affecting judicial appointments in immigration courts not only exacerbates the backlog but also threatens public trust in the system's fairness.

Impact of Firings on Pending Cases

Each year, immigration judges like Doyle handle between 500 and 700 cases. With Massachusetts already grappling with a backlog of approximately 160,000 immigration cases, Doyle's departure adds pressure to an overstretched system.

Her planned takeover of another judge's caseload has been thwarted, leaving remaining judges to shoulder the extra burden.

"The cases will need to be distributed among all the other judges, which will increase their already substantial workload," Doyle remarked, underscoring the strain placed on her former colleagues.

Her dismissal is not unprecedented. In 2021, following Biden's ascension to office, Trump-appointed Judge Marna Rusher was relieved of her duties. This practice raises questions about administrative motives and the potential for partisan decision-making.

Concerns About Civil Servants Raised

While Doyle firmly believes her recent termination was politically driven, her reflection on such processes reveals a more nuanced understanding of presidential influence. "Perhaps every president seeks to imprint their own agenda," Doyle speculated.

Despite her anger, Doyle expressed reluctance to label all judicial firings political, acknowledging a possible intent to implement a different vision for America. Nevertheless, she warns against politicizing judicial roles and risking public confidence in an already strained legal infrastructure.

In statements to media, Doyle cautioned against undermining the work of civil servants, who pledge to serve the public and uphold the Constitution. "Politicizing our work can dismantle the system and erode people's trust," she explained.

Union Leader Criticizes Firings

Matthew Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, criticized the notion of dismissing judges amid a critical need for more personnel to enforce laws. Biggs cited these actions as exemplifying hypocrisy, echoing Doyle's alarm.

For Doyle, the firing's consequences stretch beyond personal impact. "It’s problematic for the process to become political," she stressed, urging focus on service and fairness as priorities for judicial roles.

The firings' immediate effects are clear. Immigration courts face significant challenges as they navigate increased caseloads with fewer judges.

Future of Immigration Courts Unclear

Within this contentious landscape, one voice remains steadfast. "None of us were in the role to further a political agenda. We were there to do our jobs," asserted Doyle, her resolve unshaken by recent events.

As immigration case backlogs continue to grow, the necessity for a robust, impartial judiciary is evident. The debate over political influence within immigration courts underscores the importance of maintaining judicial independence to ensure equitable legal processes across the board.