On Tuesday, April 7, 2026, Law360 reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked a D.C. federal court to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed by Tania Nemer, a former Ohio immigration judge. The DOJ contends that Nemer’s complaint is largely based on unsupported statements and speculation, lacking sufficient factual allegations.
In its motion to dismiss, the DOJ asserted that Nemer failed to establish a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the First Amendment. Furthermore, the DOJ argued that even if such a claim were valid, the government possessed the constitutional authority to remove her from her position under Article II.
Nemer initiated her lawsuit in December, accusing the Trump administration of discriminating against her due to her dual Lebanese-American citizenship and her past involvement as a Democratic politician. She claimed that her termination from her role as an immigration judge in Cleveland, shortly after the administration took office in January 2025, was discriminatory.
The DOJ countered that Nemer’s claims of discrimination based on her gender and national origin were unsubstantiated. The DOJ argues that Tania Nemer’s claims—specifically that she was the only Lebanese judge in her hiring class and that two male colleagues were kept on while she was fired—are merely speculative and do not provide enough evidence to establish a legal case for discrimination.
Additionally, the DOJ dismissed Nemer’s claim of discrimination based on her political affiliation and past candidacy for a county-level judicial office as a Democrat. The DOJ argued that with over 115,000 employees worldwide and the Executive Office for Immigration Review having over 2,000 employees nationally, it was implausible that Nemer’s political background was widely known within the department.
The government further asserted that, as an immigration judge, Nemer held a position that could be terminated by the Attorney General without cause, regardless of any discrimination claims.
Nemer’s legal counsel, Nathaniel Zelinsky and James Eisenman, responded to the DOJ’s motion, stating their intent to challenge what they described as an attack on Title VII. They asserted that the government’s attempt to undermine the landmark discrimination law is both unfounded and contradicts established legal precedent.
Source: Law360
