Military lawyer swiftly fired from immigration bench after defying Trump deportation push

MIAMI (AP) — A U.S. Army Reserve lawyer detailed as a federal immigration judge has been fired barely a month into the job after granting asylum at a high rate out of step with the Trump administration’s mass deportation goals, The Associated Press has learned.

Christopher Day began hearing cases in late October as a temporary judge at the immigration court in Annandale, Virginia. He was fired around Dec. 2, the National Association of Immigration Judges confirmed.

It’s unclear why Day was fired. Day did not comment when contacted by the AP, and a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to discuss personnel matters.

But federal data from November shows he ruled on asylum cases in ways at odds with the Trump administration’s stated goals.

Of the 11 cases he concluded in November, he granted asylum or some other type of relief allowing the migrant to remain in the United States a total of six times, according to federal data analyzed by Mobile Pathways, a San Francisco-based non profit.

Such favorable outcomes for migrants have become increasingly rare as the Trump administration seeks to slash a massive backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases by radically overhauling the nation’s 75 immigration courts.

As part of that drive, the Trump administration has fired almost 100 judges viewed as too liberal and over the summer eased rules allowing any attorney, regardless of their legal background, to apply to become what recent recruitment ads refer to as a “Deportation Judge.”

In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in September approved sending up to 600 military lawyers to hear asylum cases. The goal, migrant advocacy groups say, is to redefine a judge’s traditional duties as a fair, independent arbiter of asylum claims into something akin to a rubber stamp in a robe for the White House’s mass deportation goals.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association has decried the influx of military officers lacking expertise in immigration law, likening them to cardiologists attempting to do a hip replacement. But Pentagon and White House officials have defended the move, saying that a campaign to rule on pending asylum claims was something that all federal workers — as well as migrants sometimes in limbo for years — should rally behind.

So far, only 30 members of the military have been detailed to the immigration courts and for the most part appear to have lived up to the administration’s expectations. Nine out of every 10 migrants whose asylum cases were heard by such judges in November were either ordered removed or requested to self-deport, according to federal data. Overall, the military judges ordered removal 78% of the time compared to 63% for all other judges.

But those like Day, whose rulings countered that trend, are especially vulnerable if it is determined they violated their military duties, said Dana Leigh Marks, a retired immigration judge.

“It is hard to imagine someone being fired so quickly, after five weeks on the bench, unless it was for ideological reasons,” said Marks, the former head of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “It’s especially unfair to military judges because they don’t have the same civil service protections and could face severe consequences for failing in their assignment.”

The Uniform Command of Military Justice, which governs service members, forbids senior military leaders from interfering or retaliating against military attorneys for their actions in a military tribunal. Army regulations also require JAG attorneys to proceed with candor and honesty much like all licensed lawyers are expected to do in civil courts.

But whether those standards apply to military lawyers working outside of the normal confines of a military tribunal is untested.

Brenner Fissell, a Villanova University law professor, said that there are a number of personnel actions that can be taken — letters of counseling or reprimand — that, even if found to be baseless later, would affect one’s potential for promotion and impact their discharge. Appealing such decisions, he said, is a byzantine process that can take years and require hiring a costly lawyer.

“The process can be the punishment,” said Fissell, who helps run the Orders Project, which helps provide counsel to military personnel who believe they are being asked to carry out illegal orders.

A graduate of American University law school, Day has held multiple jobs in the federal government over the past two decades while simultaneously serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps. His last job was as an attorney for the Federal Communications Commission during the Biden administration.

Unlike federal judges, who have lifetime tenure, immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department, which runs immigration courts, and can be fired by the attorney general with fewer restraints.

That message was driven home during a two-week training course in October held for new judges, including those assigned by the Pentagon, according to someone who attended the training on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private sessions.

The Pentagon has offered extra incentives to military officers signing up for temporary detail on immigration courts. Those volunteering were promised their choice of assignments, according to an email sent by the JAG Corps leadership in the fall, a copy of which was shared with the AP. But if enough officers didn’t come forward, officers might be required to relocate up to six months away from home to fulfill the mandate, according to the email.

——

Associated Press writer Michael Biesecker in Washington contributed to this report.