A U.S. Army Reserve lawyer who had been detailed as a federal immigration judge was fired just a month after starting the job, after he granted asylum in six of the eleven cases he heard in November.
## Background on Christopher Day
Day began hearing cases in late October as a temporary judge at the immigration court in Annandale, Virginia. He was fired around Dec. 2, according to the National Association of Immigration Judges. His federal data shows that of the 11 cases he concluded in November, he granted asylum or other relief allowing the migrant to remain in the United States six times. This rate contrasts sharply with the Trump administration’s stated goal of reducing a backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases.
## Trump Administration’s Judicial Reforms
The administration fired almost 100 judges viewed as too liberal and eased rules to let any attorney, regardless of background, apply to become a “Deportation Judge.” In September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved sending up to 600 military lawyers to hear asylum cases. The American Immigration Lawyers Association criticized the influx of military officers lacking immigration expertise, likening them to cardiologists attempting a hip replacement.
## Performance of Military Judges
Only 30 military officers have been detailed to immigration courts so far. In November, nine out of every ten migrants whose cases were heard by these judges were ordered removed or asked to self-deport, according to federal data. Military judges ordered removal 78% of the time compared with 63% for all other judges. Day’s rulings, which favored asylum seekers, deviated from this trend.
## Comments from Former Judges
Dana Leigh Marks, a retired immigration judge and former head of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said, “It is hard to imagine someone being fired so quickly, after five weeks on the bench, unless it was for ideological reasons.” She added, “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.”
## Legal Framework and Personnel Issues
The Uniform Code of Military Justice 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. Whether those standards apply to military lawyers working outside of the normal confines of a military tribunal remains untested.
## Perspective from Legal Scholars
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. “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. He added that appealing such decisions is a byzantine process that can take years and require hiring a costly lawyer.
## Background on Day
Day is a graduate of American University law school. Over the past two decades he has held multiple jobs in the federal government while simultaneously serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps. His last federal position was as an attorney for the Federal Communications Commission during the Biden administration.
## Firing Process and Training
Unlike federal judges, immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department, which runs immigration courts, and can be fired by the attorney general with fewer restraints. A two-week training course in October for new judges, including those assigned by the Pentagon, highlighted this message. The Pentagon has offered extra incentives to military officers signing up for temporary detail on immigration courts. An email from JAG Corps leadership in the fall promised volunteers a choice of assignments, but also stated that if enough officers didn’t come forward, officers might be required to relocate up to six months away from home to fulfill the mandate.
## Key Takeaways
– Christopher Day was fired after a month on the bench for granting asylum in 6 of 11 cases.
– Military judges largely favor removal, with Day’s rulings diverging from that trend.
– Legal scholars warn that personnel actions can hinder promotion and discharge, and appeals are difficult.
The firing underscores tensions between the Trump-era push for rapid deportations and the role of military attorneys in immigration courts.
