A former immigration judge from Cleveland, Ohio, has initiated legal action against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice, claiming that her unexpected dismissal resulted from President Donald Trump’s purported “constitutional right to discriminate against federal workers.” The lawsuit, filed on Monday, highlights concerns that this practice could jeopardize the careers of countless individuals in the future.

Tania Nemer, formerly a prosecutor in the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office and a magistrate in the Akron Municipal Court, alleged that she was fired 15 days after Trump’s inauguration as the 47th president, within her two-year probationary trial period as an immigration judge in the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Nemer’s trial period began in 2023.

Unlike federal U.S. district judges, circuit judges, and Supreme Court justices who enjoy lifetime tenure, immigration judges operate within the executive branch and lack such permanence. They are appointed by the U.S. Attorney General following a thorough background check, as outlined in legal guidelines.

During a two-year probationary period, immigration judges can be dismissed if they do not consistently exhibit the requisite skills, professionalism, and demeanor in court, as explained by a former director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in 2008 congressional testimony. The Department of Justice evaluates these qualities through feedback from court staff, colleagues, and other stakeholders, with a comprehensive report submitted to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General five months before the end of the probationary period.

According to the lawsuit filed by Nemer, she was dismissed abruptly, just two weeks after President Trump resumed office, suggesting that her termination was part of a hasty initiative by the new administration to remove certain civil servants. She contends that the lack of a thorough review of her capabilities indicates that her firing was rooted in overt discrimination.

Worse yet, Nemer claimed, the firing can only be explained as the consequence of open discrimination.

“Indeed, in a formal administrative decision issued in this case, the government has concluded that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination in the federal workforce conflicts with the President’s inherent Article II authority to oversee the executive branch. This argument boils down to the remarkable legal theory that the President has a constitutional right to discriminate against federal workers, in violation of the law. That is wrong. Full stop,” said the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “It bears emphasis: The government’s legal theory reflects an unprecedented assault by the current Administration against the civil service laws that protect millions of federal employees. If the government prevails in transforming the law, it will eviscerate the professional, non-partisan civil service as we know it.”

Nemer further alleged that “unlawful discrimination” punished her for being a woman, a “dual citizen of Lebanon, having been born to immigrant parents who moved to this country to pursue the American dream,” and for having run for “judicial office in Ohio as a Democrat.”

According to the plaintiff, not only did her supervisor have glowing things to say about her job performance upon her ouster, the DOJ has said little other than she was removed from her role.

“Far from explaining why she had been fired, Ms. Nemer’s supervisor told her that she was one of his best employees. Prior to being escorted out of the building, both Ms. Nemer’s supervisor and the Acting Chief Immigration Judge of the United States claimed that they both did not know why she was being fired,” the lawsuit continued. “And to this day, the government has failed to offer any coherent and legitimate nondiscriminatory rationale for her termination, in writing or otherwise.”

“Instead, the government has simply said that ‘Ms. Nemer was removed from her position by the Acting Attorney General under the authority of Article II of the United States Constitution,’” the plaintiff continued.

Two months after her firing, Nemer said, she filed a formal discrimination complaint at the “appropriate federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office,” but rather than “fully” investigating her complaint, the complaint was tossed due to Trump’s Article II powers.

The civil complaint said that if this the law then no federal worker is safe — meaning that “the stakes are extraordinary.”

“This is not hypothetical,” the lawsuit added. “It is what happened in this case. Ms. Nemer was discriminated against because of her sex and national origin, in violation of Title VII, and she was discriminated against because she previously ran for office and prominently associated with a political party, in violation of the First Amendment.”

“That unjust proposition is as wrong as it sounds,” the lawsuit concluded, claiming that Nemer is entitled to compensatory damages and reinstatement because her career has been damaged to the point of derailment.

Read the lawsuit here.