On Monday, December 1, 2025, former immigration judge Tania Nemer filed a complaint in a federal court in Washington, D.C. against Attorney General Pamela Bondi and the Department of Justice, alleging unlawful discrimination and violation of her constitutional rights. The case centers on Nemer’s termination from her position at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and raises questions about the scope of presidential authority over federal employees.

Nemer, a female attorney and dual citizen of Lebanon, claims she was terminated from her role as an immigration judge on February 5, 2025, just fifteen days after the new presidential administration took office. She alleges her termination was based on her sex, national origin, and prior political activities, specifically her unsuccessful run for a judicial office in Ohio as a Democrat in 2019.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and the First Amendment, which protects against discrimination based on political affiliation.

According to the complaint, Nemer began working as an immigration judge in 2023 and received the highest possible performance rating. However, she was abruptly fired during her trial period. Nemer’s supervisor and the Acting Chief Immigration Judge reportedly claimed ignorance regarding the reasons for her termination. The government has stated that Nemer was removed by the Acting Attorney General under the authority of Article II of the United States Constitution.

Nemer filed a formal discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office on April 4, 2025. The EEO office dismissed her complaint on September 25, 2025, asserting that Title VII does not constrain discriminatory dismissal against immigration judges due to a conflict with Article II removal power.

The lawsuit challenges the government’s legal theory, arguing that it reflects an unprecedented assault on civil service laws and threatens the non-partisan nature of the federal workforce. Nemer’s legal team contends that the government’s position would allow the President to fire federal workers based on protected characteristics and political affiliation with impunity.

The complaint cites Supreme Court precedent, including United States v. Perkins, which established Congress’s authority to regulate the federal civil service. It argues that Congress exercised this authority when it extended Title VII’s protections to federal employees.

The lawsuit details Nemer’s background, highlighting her legal career in Cleveland, Ohio, and her experience representing clients in immigration matters. It emphasizes that the Department of Justice’s hiring memorandum described her as “the perfect candidate” for the immigration judge position.

The complaint states that Nemer was one of three immigration judges in the Cleveland Immigration Court serving a probationary period. The other two, both male and not of Lebanese origin, were not terminated. Nemer was also the only one of Lebanese origin and the only immigration judge with dual citizenship to an Arab country in a class of 38 immigration judges hired in July 2023.

The lawsuit alleges that Acting Chief Immigration Judge Keith Hunsucker, who was instructed to fire Nemer, claimed he did not know the reason for her termination. Acting Director of EOIR, Sirce Owen, provided a termination letter stating that “EOIR has determined that retaining you is not appropriate.”

During the EEO investigation, EOIR reportedly failed to produce a memorandum articulating the justification for Nemer’s termination. Owen’s affidavit stated that Nemer was removed by the Acting Attorney General under the authority of Article II of the United States Constitution.

Owen’s affidavit also mentioned two local tax cases involving Nemer from 2010 and 2011, an Ohio state tax lien from 2021, and a history of driving offenses in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The lawsuit argues that these matters were used as a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the government violated Nemer’s rights, reinstatement, rescission of her termination, frontpay and backpay, a writ of mandamus, and compensatory damages. Nemer has demanded a jury trial.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.