A military lawyer temporarily assigned as a federal immigration judge was abruptly removed after only five weeks on the bench.
According to Military.com, Christopher Day, a U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel, was dismissed in early December after ruling in favor of asylum seekers in over half of the cases he adjudicated, raising questions about ideological fit within the administration's determined effort to streamline immigration enforcement.
Day, who began hearing cases in late October at the immigration courthouse in Annandale, Virginia, was among a wave of military lawyers deployed by the Pentagon to help clear a growing backlog of migration cases. The deployment followed a specific authorization by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in September to assign up to 600 military legal officers to the overwhelmed immigration courts.
Temporary Military Judges Face Political Crosswinds
Roughly 30 military officers have already been detailed to immigration courts, providing a temporary bench to address the mounting 3.8 million-case backlog. In November, nearly 90% of migrants appearing before these military judges were either removed or requested voluntary departure. Day’s rulings stood out. Of the 11 decisions he made by November’s end, six favored migrants seeking asylum or relief—an unusually high success rate in an era where courtroom tolerance for such outcomes has steadily waned.
The Trump administration has set a clear tone: bring order to the messy immigration courts. That has included shaking up judge qualifications, marketing positions as “Deportation Judge,” and letting go of nearly 100 judges considered too lenient on migrants.
Short-Term Assignment Ends Abruptly
Though Day’s military rank and federal experience—the latter including service at the Federal Communications Commission—suggested a robust background, it wasn’t enough to save his new gig. Around December 2, his detail ended, according to the National Association of Immigration Judges.
“It is hard to imagine someone being fired so quickly, after five weeks on the bench, unless it was for ideological reasons,” commented Dana Leigh Marks, retired immigration judge and former president of the NAIJ. Marks called Day’s removal “especially unfair to military judges,” who lack traditional civil service protections and can be disciplined in ways that carry consequences far beyond a brief stint in immigration court.
Indeed, for military officers, what may appear to be a short-term reassignment can come with long-lasting effects. Personnel actions—even misdirected ones—can deeply impact long-term careers, counsel military law experts.
Military Attorneys Caught In Political Crossfire
“The process can be the punishment,” warned Brenner Fissell, a law professor at Villanova and co-leader of the Orders Project, highlighting how reputational damage and internal reprimands can endure well after any temporary judicial duties conclude.
Army regulations require that Judge Advocate General (JAG) attorneys act with integrity and honesty. However, the applicability of those standards in non-military courts is blurry at best—and something immigration court assignments may not clarify.
To maintain pressure on deportation quotas, the Department of Justice has emphasized that immigration judges work at the pleasure of the attorney general. That includes military judges, who are being trained to understand this reality from day one.
Judges Promised Perks, Faced Pressure Instead
New military judges reportedly received warnings that their employment would not be protected should their rulings deviate from departmental expectations. Unlike Article III judges with lifetime appointments, immigration judges are at-will employees, and this temporary bench seems doubly precarious. Some officers were incentivized to volunteer for these roles with promises of desirable later assignments. Those who declined might be sent involuntarily—and even removed from their posts if they failed to toe the line.
While Day’s specific dismissal lacked an official explanation, his high rate of asylum approvals didn’t exactly blend with the administration’s broader goals. Whether his judicial interpretation or mere statistics sealed his fate remains a matter for speculation—but the trend is unmistakable.
Day’s departure underscores the administration’s laser focus on ideological alignment throughout immigration courts and the sharp consequences for those who appear out of step—with or without putting a foot wrong.
