President Donald Trump listens during a cabinet meeting, Friday, July 31, 2026, at Camp David, the presidential retreat, near Thurmont, Md. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).
An immigration judge fired by the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., federal court alleging that she was terminated “because of her sex, race, and national origin.”
In September 2025, Anam Rahman Petit was fired after roughly two years sitting on the Annandale Immigration Court in Virginia.
“She performed the duties of her office exceptionally well because of her decade of experience in immigration law, and because of her commitment to ensuring fairness and due process for every person who appeared before her,” her 20-page lawsuit reads. “Her performance reviews reflected her excellent performance.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
So, when the email about her termination came – just before she was about to issue a ruling in a family asylum case – both the judge and her immediate supervisor were perplexed, according to the complaint.
“[Her supervisor] called her and said that he had written her a glowing review, which had also included all of the positive performance feedback he had received from Ms. Petit’s colleagues, and that there was no performance-based reason for her termination,” the lawsuit goes on. “[Her supervisor] told Ms. Petit that he did not know why she was being terminated and that he had not recommended it.”
Petit’s supervisor went on to say he “did not understand DOJ’s decision” because the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) “needed immigration judges like her,” the lawsuit alleges.
Throughout the second Trump administration, agencies have been heavy on terminations but light on reasoning for axing personnel. And immigration courts have been a particular source of churn.
Immigration judges are not the same as regular – or Article III – federal judges. Rather, they are creatures of statute under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and considered a federal officer. Whereas Article III judges are appointed by the president, immigration judges are employees of the EOIR, a subagency within the U.S. Department of Justice, who are appointed by the U.S. attorney general.
But firing any federal employee for their sex, race, or national origin is clearly prohibited by longstanding federal law.
Petit says that’s exactly what happened here – in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The lawsuit also alleges she was fired due to her “political affiliation and prior associations in violation of the First Amendment.”
“To this day, DOJ has not provided a legitimate non-discriminatory justification for Ms. Petit’s termination,” the lawsuit reads.
The government, for its part, believes Petit was simply an “at-will” employee who could be fired for nearly any reason and, more importantly, whose termination is beyond review due to executive branch power. The plaintiff, unsurprisingly, strongly takes issue with that estimation of firing authority.
“This is incorrect,” the lawsuit goes on. “Congress has the authority to pass laws regulating the civil service. Congress made Title VII’s critical protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin applicable to the federal workforce in 1972 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Executive Branch the right to discriminate in violation of the Civil Rights Act.”
Petit also says U.S. Supreme Court precedent is on her side.
“[T]he Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution itself forbids the government from discriminating, including because of an employee’s partisan affiliation, which violates the First Amendment,” the lawsuit continues.
Here, Petit says the DOJ specifically targeted her because of her “past association with organizations affiliated with political ideologies contrary” to the Trump administration “such as immigrants’ rights organizations and the Democratic Party.”
The lawsuit also launches an attack on such firings:
In this case and others like it, the current Administration has taken direct aim at the foundational principles that undergird the federal civil service. The DOJ’s final agency decision in this case 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 and thus cannot apply. At base, the Government’s legal theory is that the President has a constitutional right to discriminate against federal workers. This is false.
The litigation alleges three statutory violations of the Civil Rights Act, two constitutional violations of the First Amendment, as well as two additional causes of action under statutory and common law.
Petit is requesting a declaratory judgment that the government violated the law and Constitution, reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
“The federal government has asserted a constitutional right to discriminate against federal employees,” the lawsuit’s introduction reads. “That bizarre result is as wrong as it sounds, and this Court’s intervention is urgently needed.”
The post ‘As wrong as it sounds’: Fired immigration judge sues to get her job back, alleges Trump admin discriminated against her because she was previously an ‘immigrants’ rights’ lawyer first appeared on Law & Crime.
