Case: Pappas v. Blanche

1:26-cv-12194 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: May 14, 2026

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenges the termination of an Immigration Judge allegedly because of his national origin, age, and association with Latin American and Hispanic individuals and immigration rights organizations. On May 14, 2026, an appointed Immigration Judge of Greek origin filed this lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Justice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employme…

This case challenges the termination of an Immigration Judge allegedly because of his national origin, age, and association with Latin American and Hispanic individuals and immigration rights organizations. On May 14, 2026, an appointed Immigration Judge of Greek origin filed this lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Justice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 633a, and the First Amendment. The plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against his former employer. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin was assigned to the case.

The plaintiff was appointed as an Immigration Judge with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) for the Boston and Chelmsford, Massachusetts immigration courts on July 23, 2023. Immigration Judge appointments are routinely converted to permanent positions after an initial two-year term. During his initial term, the plaintiff consistently received the highest performance ratings available and was never disciplined or warned of any performance problems. The EOIR notified him on July 11, 2025, that his appointment would not be converted and that he would be terminated effective July 22, 2025.

On September 23, 2025, the plaintiff filed a formal discrimination complaint. On February 17, 2026, the DOJ issued a Final Agency Decision dismissing it for failure to state a claim, concluding that Immigration Judges are inferior officers subject to at-will removal under Article II and therefore outside the protections of Title VII and the ADEA. The decision further reasoned that restricting the President's removal authority over Immigration Judges would impermissibly limit executive power and declined to investigate the discrimination allegations.

The plaintiff then brought this suit and alleged that his termination was part of a broader pattern: of the 38 judges in his July 2023 cohort, an estimated 20 were not converted, and every judge with a Hispanic, Middle Eastern, or South Asian surname was terminated or not converted. He further alleged that the terminations were driven by EOIR memoranda issued in 2025 by the then-Attorney General and then-Acting EOIR Director. The department-wide memoranda announced the end of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, expressed hostility toward noncitizens and noncitizen advocacy, accused immigration advocacy lawyers of committing immigration fraud, and alleged those lawyers were aligned with Democratic terrorism.

The plaintiff alleges that EOIR management, aware of his Greek heritage and his 20 years representing noncitizens as both a principal attorney and through pro bono service, declined to convert him, or other judges with similar backgrounds, to permanent positions, while converting judges with solely prosecutorial immigration law backgrounds, in violation of Title VII. The plaintiff also asserts a violation of the ADEA because a majority of the judges terminated or not converted were over 40, and a violation of the First Amendment because he was allegedly terminated for his political affiliations, including his association with immigrant rights organizations.


This case remains ongoing.

 

Summary Authors

Madeline Dollard (7/27/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73341545/parties/pappas-v-blanche/


Judge(s)

Sorokin, Leo Theodore (Massachusetts)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Messing, Ellen J. (Massachusetts)

Simpson, Geoffrey Howard (Massachusetts)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

1:26-cv-12194

Complaint

May 14, 2026

May 14, 2026

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73341545/pappas-v-blanche/

Last updated Aug. 30, 2026, 3:12 a.m.

Docket for: Pappas v. Blanche
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 May 14, 2026

COMPLAINT against All Defendants Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number AMADC-11744446 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by George Pappas. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet (Dist. of Mass), # 2 Category Form) (Messing, Ellen). (Entered: 05/14/2026)

1 Civil Cover Sheet (Dist. of Mass)

View on PACER

2 Category Form

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
2 May 14, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (NMC) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

RECAP
3 May 14, 2026

Summons Issued as to Todd Blanche, U.S. Department of Justice. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (FGD) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

RECAP
May 14, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

4 July 9, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Geoffrey H. Simpson Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-11874738 by George Pappas. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Geoffrey H Simpson, Esq.)(Messing, Ellen) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

RECAP
5 July 9, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 4 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Geoffrey H. Simpson. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (FGD) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

RECAP
July 9, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

6 July 22, 2026

Entry refiled under correct event. Please see entry 8 . (Entered: 07/22/2026)

RECAP
8 July 22, 2026

SUMMONS Returned Executed. Todd Blanche served on 7/22/2026, answer due 9/21/2026; U.S. Department of Justice served on 7/22/2026, answer due 9/21/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2). (FGD) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

RECAP
7 July 23, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Geoffrey Howard Simpson on behalf of George Pappas (Simpson, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

RECAP
9 July 23, 2026

NOTICE of Change of Address or Firm Name by Ellen J. Messing (Messing, Ellen) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

RECAP
10 Aug. 7, 2026

Affidavit of Service

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

Massachusetts

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 14, 2026

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Immigration Judge of Greek Origin, over 40, associated with immigrant rights organizations

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

Department of Justice

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Freedom of speech/association

Other Dockets:

District of Massachusetts 1:26-cv-12194

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Damages

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Discharge & termination plans

Recommended Citation