Case: Dillon v. Blanche
3:26-cv-10143 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: Sept. 10, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges the termination of a San Francisco immigration judge two days after she warned her supervisor that federal immigration agents had unlawfully arrested an unaccompanied minor who had just appeared in her courtroom.
The former immigration judge filed suit on September 10, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Represented by private counsel, she sued under the Whistleblower Protection Act (5 U.S.C. § 2302), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. § 706), the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02), and the federal mandamus statute (28 U.S.C. § 1361), naming as defendants the Attorney General and the Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in their official capacities, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The plaintiff claimed that she was fired in retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity, and that her termination was void from the outset under the Appointments Clause and Article II of the Constitution because the termination letter was signed by EOIR's Acting Director rather than the Attorney General, who, under DOJ's own reading of the law, alone may remove inferior officers. She further claimed that the defendants retaliated against her for exercising her free speech rights and discriminated against her for her perceived political views protected by the First Amendment, and that they violated her Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights and her property interest in continued employment. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the APA by implementing a final decision that was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to Article II and the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, and because they lacked lawful authority to terminate her without adhering to statutory protections. She sought reinstatement, backpay and lost benefits, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus in the alternative, and attorneys' fees and costs. The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang. Because the parties had not all consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the case was randomly reassigned to District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín on September 11, 2026.
The complaint sets out the following facts. The plaintiff became an immigration judge in San Francisco in September 2022 and converted to permanent employment in August 2024. In April 2025, the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge directed San Francisco's immigration judges to grant nearly all motions to change venue filed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The plaintiff objected that the directive conflicted with Board of Immigration Appeals precedent giving judges discretion over those motions and could interfere with respondents' access to counsel. However, her supervisor warned her that "the White House" was watching the issue and to be careful about pushing it. In July and August 2025, the plaintiff denied ICE motions to re-calendar cases of unaccompanied minors whose asylum applications were pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), noting that jurisdiction over those applications was at USCIS and that re-calendaring the cases could violate the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the J.O.P. v. DHS settlement. On August 20, 2025, ICE moved to dismiss the case of an unrepresented respondent in order to pursue expedited removal, and agents detained him as he left the courtroom. The plaintiff later concluded that he was likely a designated unaccompanied minor who could not lawfully be placed in expedited removal. That afternoon, she emailed her supervisor raising concerns about violations of statutory law and due process, and about courthouse arrests disrupting the administration of justice. On August 22, 2025, she received a termination letter signed by EOIR's Acting Director.
Before filing this suit, the plaintiff appealed her termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Her appeal stalled while the Board considered a consolidated case involving other fired immigration judges, Jackler and Jaroch v. Department of Justice. In March 2026, the Board held in that case that it lacked jurisdiction over immigration judges removed by the Attorney General under Article II, a decision that is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As of the filing of the complaint, the Administrative Law Judge in the plaintiff's appeal had asked the parties to address why the appeal should not be dismissed pending the Federal Circuit's decision in Jackler/Jaroch, and the judge had not ruled on the issue. Therefore, the plaintiff argued that she had effectively exhausted her administrative remedies.
As of October 2026, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Hannah Grosserichter (10/7/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74770645/parties/dillon-v-blanche/
Proctor, Melanie Lea (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74770645/dillon-v-blanche/
Last updated Oct. 25, 2026, 3:10 a.m.
Docket for: Dillon v. Blanche
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 10, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Former San Fransisco immigration judge terminated without cause.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Justice
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:26-cv-10143
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Dillon v. Blanche, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48502/ (last updated 10/7/2026).