Ex-Immigration Judge Files Lawsuit Against Bondi Alleging Sex Discrimination
A legal showdown is emerging in Washington after former immigration judge Tania Nemer accused Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Trump administration of unlawfully removing her from the bench just weeks into her tenure.
Nemer’s lawsuit argues that her dismissal—carried out during the Biden-to-Trump transition—reflects a sweeping assertion of presidential authority that she says threatens decades of civil service protections and allows the executive branch to bypass long-standing limits on discrimination.
Nemer filed her lawsuit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, naming Bondi as the official responsible for executing the termination.
The complaint contends that her firing violated the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming it was based on her sex, national origin and past political activity—including a Democratic judicial run in Ohio—all of which federal law has long protected.
Her legal team says the administration’s defense rests on an expansive reading of Article II, giving the president broad discretion over executive-branch employment decisions.
“This is a case in which the President of the United States has asserted a constitutional right to discriminate against federal employees,” attorney Nathaniel Zelinsky wrote, according to The Washington Examiner. “If the government prevails in transforming the law, it will eviscerate the professional, non-partisan civil service as we know it.”
Nemer had been sworn in as an immigration judge just 15 days before her removal.
According to the lawsuit, she had earned “the highest possible performance rating” when she was abruptly summoned from the bench and escorted out of a Cleveland federal building.
Both her supervisor and the chief immigration judge reported they had no explanation for the mid-probation dismissal.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later dismissed her discrimination complaint, asserting that Title VII conflicts with the president’s removal authority.
The final agency decision, as recounted in the lawsuit, stated the president could fire a female employee “because of their sex” and the law “would have nothing to say about it.”
It also noted that workers with immigrant parents or dual citizenship “would have no recourse” if dismissed for their national origin.
Nemer’s complaint also emphasizes political-activity concerns, warning that under the administration’s view, federal employees could be removed “because of their political activities and affiliations—and the courts would be powerless to act.”
The lawsuit situates Nemer’s firing within a broader pattern, noting she is one of dozens of immigration judges dismissed this year amid staffing and policy changes under President Trump, NPR reports.
Her attorneys argue that upholding the government’s position would grant the executive branch unchecked discretion over hiring and firing, even in positions historically insulated from partisan influence.
Internal administrative records show that a senior DOJ immigration official referenced driving offenses from the late 1990s and early 2000s, along with two local tax matters disclosed during Nemer’s background check.
Her lawsuit describes these references as a “pretext,” emphasizing that they were never cited as grounds for removal.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Nemer is seeking reinstatement, rescission of her termination, back pay and a judicial declaration that her rights were violated.
“Nothing in the Constitution gives the executive branch the right to discriminate,” her complaint states, warning that such a precedent would leave federal workers vulnerable to termination based on characteristics the law has long protected.
Continue Scrolling for the Comments
Leave a Comment