On Saturday, February 22, 2025, JURISTnews reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declared the removal restrictions imposed on administrative law judges (ALJs) unconstitutional. This determination was communicated by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris in a letter addressed to Charles Grassley, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

The DOJ’s stance is rooted in a recent interpretation of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, specifically the ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. The Supreme Court concluded that it is unconstitutional for the president to be limited in their ability to remove principal executive officers, particularly when those officers also lack the ability to remove inferior executive officers. This ruling emphasizes the president’s constitutional duty to ensure that laws are enforced faithfully.

Chad Mizelle, the Chief of Staff at the DOJ, expressed that ALJs, who are not elected and lack constitutional accountability, have wielded significant power without adequate oversight. He stated, “In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, the Department is restoring constitutional accountability so that Executive Branch officials answer to the President and to the people.”

ALJs are appointed by heads of executive agencies and are responsible for adjudicating legal disputes related to agency rules and regulations. Historically, federal agencies have been limited in their ability to dismiss ALJs, who could only be removed for “good cause” as determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The members of the MSPB serve seven-year terms and can only be removed by the president for specific reasons, such as inefficiency or malfeasance.

In response, the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) criticized the determination as an unlawful encroachment on the independence of ALJs. Judge Som Ramrup of the AALJ contended that administrative law judges must operate free from political influence and should not be classified as at-will employees. He asserted that while the DOJ claims that the protections against removal are unconstitutional, this assertion lacks legal support.

The AALJ has urged the president to consider removing policymakers and heads of executive agencies instead of ALJs. This approach, they argue, would allow the president to uphold the enforcement of U.S. laws while maintaining the impartiality of the judiciary.

The DOJ’s determination comes on the heels of significant legal actions involving the MSPB. Chair Cathy Harris had previously filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump for her removal without justification. Similarly, Hampton Dellinger, who led the Office of the Special Counsel, took legal action against Trump for his dismissal, arguing that he could only be removed for specific reasons outlined in the law. After a federal district court ruled in favor of Dellinger and placed an injunction against Trump’s removal, the former president sought intervention from the Supreme Court to overturn the district court’s decision.

The DOJ’s recent findings signal a pivotal shift in the landscape of administrative law and the extent of executive power over ALJs. As this development unfolds, it is likely to prompt further legal challenges and discussions regarding the balance of power within the federal government.

 

 

Source: JURISTnews