Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing a legal showdown over the firing of over 100 immigration judges, with one former judge crying foul over alleged discrimination.

Former Ohio immigration Judge Tania Nemer launched a lawsuit on Monday against Bondi and the Justice Department, claiming her dismissal was steeped in bias based on sex, nationality, and political leanings, while marking the first legal challenge to a sweeping removal of judges under the Trump administration.

This isn’t just a lone grievance; it’s the tip of a contentious iceberg as the administration pushes to overhaul the immigration court system amid fierce legal battles over border policies.

Bondi brushes off bias claims

Bondi, never one to shy away from a fight, scoffed at Nemer’s accusations with a sharp quip: "Last I checked, I was a woman as well." Her point? Hard to claim gender bias when the one wielding the axe is also a lady.

Nemer’s suit alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and First Amendment protections, arguing her termination was not just unfair but outright unlawful.

Meanwhile, the scale of the purge is staggering—over 100 immigration judges have been shown the door or nudged out since January, per the American Immigration Lawyers Association, with eight alone dismissed in New York City on Monday.

Mass firings spark courtroom concerns

These firings aren’t just numbers; they’re sounding alarms about whether the immigration courts can even keep up with their caseloads as staff dwindles.

Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute didn’t mince words, stating, "I think what's happening in the immigration court system is very troubling." His concern isn’t unwarranted—when trust in judicial independence erodes, who’s left to ensure fair hearings?

Chishti further warned that these mass removals "could have a chilling effect on judges who might apply to fill the vacant spots," potentially leaving the system not just understaffed but under pressure to toe a certain line.

Administration’s legal battles mount

Bondi, undeterred by the lawsuit, framed it as just another day at the office, noting the administration has been sued a whopping 575 times—more than every presidency since Reagan combined.

She touted their courtroom victories, pointing to 24 Supreme Court wins with a 92% success rate, often through emergency rulings or the so-called "shadow docket" that have greenlit policies like ending DEI funding and reshaping federal boards.

Her focus remains clear: aligning the federal workforce with an "America First" vision, a goal she sees as resonating with many frustrated by progressive overreach in government.

Immigration courts under scrutiny

Yet, the fallout from these firings isn’t just legal—it’s practical, with experts questioning if the immigration court system can maintain its integrity or even function under such rapid change.

The Justice Department has stayed mum on Nemer’s suit and the broader wave of dismissals, leaving observers to wonder if silence signals strategy or simply indifference.

While Bondi’s confidence in the administration’s legal track record is palpable, the erosion of trust in immigration courts, as Chishti highlighted, might be a tougher battle to win than any Supreme Court ruling.