Left: President Donald Trump listens to a question from a reporter as he meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). Right: Tania Nemer, then of the Summit County Prosecutor's Office in Ohio, speaks in 2021 about why she became a prosecutor (YouTube/Summit County Prosecutor's Office).
An "abruptly" fired immigration judge based in Cleveland, Ohio, filed a lawsuit on Monday against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ, alleging that President Donald Trump's claimed "constitutional right to discriminate against federal workers" derailed her career and threatens to do the same to millions of others moving forward.
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.
Immigration judges, unlike federal U.S. district judges, circuit judges, and Supreme Court justices, do not have lifetime jobs and are not part of the judicial branch. Rather, they serve in the executive branch and are appointed by the U.S. attorney general after a "full background investigation."
During the two-year trial period, as a former EOIR director explained in 2008 congressional testimony, immigration judges "can be terminated if they fail to consistently demonstrate the necessary abilities, professionalism, and temperament on the bench," factors that DOJ higher-ups weigh based on the assessments of "court staff, peers, and interested parties, and, five months before the end of the Immigration Judge's probationary period […] a report with the Office of the Deputy Attorney General."
According to Nemer's lawsuit, she was "abruptly fired" roughly two weeks after Trump's return to the Oval Office, hardly a "careful evaluation of [her] qualifications or fitness for office—but instead as part of a rushed attempt by the new Administration to target disfavored civil servants."
Worse yet, Nemer claimed, the firing can only be explained as the consequence of open discrimination.
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
"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.