Monday, September 14, 2026
Page 3
Ex-Northern District Immigration Judge Sues Over Removal
San Francisco Attorney Says She Was Ousted for Objecting to Directive to Grant DOJ Requests for Changes of Venue, Complaining About Courthouse Detention of Unaccompanied Minor
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
|
|
|
CHLOE DILLON ousted immigration judge |
|
|
An ousted immigration for the Northern District of California has filed suit against the U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and other federal officials accusing them of removing her from office in retaliation for her expressing concerns over a directive telling her to grant government requests for changes of venue in all but “rare circumstances” and having complained about the detention of an alleged unaccompanied minor shortly after he left her courtroom.
Attorney Chloe Dillon, a former assistant federal public defender, was appointed by then-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to serve as an immigration judge in San Francisco, an office that—despite its name—sits within the Executive Branch.
In her pleading filed Thursay, she claimed that she was terminated from her position on Aug. 22 of last year even though she had “received excellent reviews, resolved thousands of cases, and her decisions were almost never appealed.” She asserts claims for violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, found at 5 U.S.C. §2302, the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments.
Emailed Directive
Dillon alleged: “On or about April 22, 2025, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Loi McCleskey emailed a directive to the San Francisco Immigration Judges, informing them that motions to change venue made by the Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should be granted and judges should only deny motions for change in venue in ‘rare circumstances.’ ”
She claimed that the directive was “contrary to” a Board of Immigration Appeals precedential decision, that vests immigration judges with discretion in deciding whether good cause exists for the change, and said so in a reply to McCleskey’s email. The two met and McCleskey purportedly “dismissed Plaintiff’s concerns.”
According to Dillon, McCleskey, who was appointed under then-President Joe Biden in 2021 and fired by the Trump administration in September 2025, warned her that “the White House” was paying attention to the change-in-venue requests and that she should be careful about pushing the issue further. Dillon ignored the directive and was informed that a case in which she denied a government motion was transferred to a different immigration judge.
Courthouse Detention
She further asserted that “ICE arrested an individual at the Immigration Court” who “was almost certainly a designated unaccompanied minor” after the government moved to dismiss his matter on Aug. 20, 2025. She emailed McCleskey to complain about the courthouse detention and about “loud protests” outside the building over ICE tactics that were disrupting “the orderly administration of justice.”
Two days later, she received an email from Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Sirce Owen saying:
“This notice serves to inform you that pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, the Attorney General has decided to remove you from your position as an excepted service Immigration Judge with the United States Department of Justice….Your removal is effective today.”
Anticipating an administrative exhaustion challenge to her pleading, she noted that she “timely filed an appeal of her termination with the Merit Systems Protection Board” and said that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) overseeing her complaint issued an order to show cause as to whether the Jackler v. Department of Justice matter, pending in the Federal Circuit, was likely to resolve her claims. She argued the case would not be dispositive.
Pending Matter
The Jackler matter involves two ex-immigration judges who challenged their removal based on lack of notice and cause based on federal civil service laws.
After an ALJ ordered them reinstated, the Merit Systems Protection Board, which oversees the firing of federal employees, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, saying that civil services rules do not apply to immigration judges, who may be removed by the Executive Branch for any reason and at any time; the attorneys appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Remarking that “[t]o date, the ALJ has not ruled on the [Order to Show Cause],” Dillon opined:
“Plaintiff has effectively exhausted her administrative remedies such that further delay is not warranted.”
Several other California-based former immigration judges have filed suit this year over their removal, but those complaints assert sex, age, or racial discrimination. Dillon’s pleading appears to be the first to assert whistleblower claims and First Amendment violations.
In January, EOIR announced that it would not be renewing the lease for the San Francisco Immigration Court building and planned to move the cases to a smaller, Concord facility. No hearings have been heard there since April.
Dillon is currently serving as the head of Criminal Immigration Defense for the San Mateo County Private Defender Program.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company