Army Lawyer Fired from Immigration Bench After Defying Trump Deportation Agenda

A U.S. Army Reserve lawyer serving temporarily as a federal immigration judge was dismissed from his post after issuing a series of asylum decisions that ran counter to the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies. His firing has renewed serious concerns about judicial independence in the immigration court system and the increasing politicization of immigration enforcement.

A controversial tenure cut short

Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Day, a lawyer in the U.S. Army Reserve, began hearing immigration cases in late October at the immigration court in Annandale, Virginia. Less than two months into his assignment, Day was fired in early December, according to confirmations from the National Association of Immigration Judges.

Available federal data shows that during November, Day granted asylum or other relief in six of the eleven cases he decided — a rate significantly higher than typical outcomes under the administration’s mass-deportation framework.

A broader push for deportations

Day’s dismissal occurred amid a sweeping restructuring of the immigration court system. The Department of Justice has removed or reassigned dozens of immigration judges deemed insufficiently aligned with the administration’s enforcement priorities.

At the same time, the administration has recruited attorneys — including active-duty and reserve military lawyers — to serve as immigration judges. Recruitment materials have emphasized rapid case processing and removal efficiency, prompting critics to refer to these positions as “deportation judges.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the use of military lawyers for immigration adjudication, a move immigration advocates say raises due-process concerns. Many military attorneys lack specialized immigration law experience, yet are tasked with deciding complex asylum and removal cases with life-or-death consequences.

Concerns over impartiality and expertise

Supporters of the policy argue that extraordinary measures are necessary to address a backlog of millions of pending immigration cases. Reporting shows that military judges have ordered removal or voluntary departure in roughly nine out of ten cases, a markedly higher rate than that of traditional immigration judges.

Opponents, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, warn that this approach erodes judicial independence. Immigration judges are employees of the Department of Justice rather than members of an independent judiciary, and military lawyers temporarily assigned to these roles often lack civil service protections. As a result, judges whose decisions diverge from political expectations may face termination.

What this means for the immigration system

Unlike Article III federal judges, immigration judges can be removed with relative ease. Military lawyers serving in these roles are even more vulnerable, as their assignments can be terminated without the procedural safeguards afforded to permanent immigration judges.

Day’s firing highlights a central tension in the U.S. immigration system: whether adjudication will remain grounded in individualized legal analysis, or increasingly function as an extension of executive enforcement policy. As immigration courts continue to operate at the intersection of law and politics, the consequences for due process — and for those seeking refuge — remain profound.

Sources