Posted on 02/23/2025 11:25:58 AM PST by MrZippy2k
The Justice Department issued a letter on Thursday stating that it has determined many removal restrictions for administrative law judges to be unconstitutional.
The decision follows growing frustration within the Trump administration over judicial roadblocks to its executive actions.
In the letter, acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris informed President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that the Justice Department “has concluded that the multiple layers of removal restrictions for administrative law judges” violate the U.S. Constitution, the Western Journal reported.
The letter means the administration “will no longer defend” the removal restrictions in court or in litigation.
For reference, Harris cited a 2010 decision from the Supreme Court, which said that granting “multilayer protection from removal” to executive officers “is contrary to Article II’s vesting of the executive power in the President.”
The Department of Justice also argues that the federal law limiting the dismissal of administrative law judges to cases of “good cause” violates Article II of the Constitution. That federal statute limits “the President’s ability to remove principal executive officers, who are in turn restricted in their ability to remove inferior executive officers.”
The federal government employs administrative law judges to oversee laws and regulations across various sectors, including banking, antitrust, immigration, and interstate commerce, according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. These judges differ from Article III federal judges, who preside over federal courts and hold positions explicitly recognized by the Constitution.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that federal agencies lack the broad regulatory authority they have long asserted, as noted in a Reuters report.
One such ruling found that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of in-house administrative law judges to adjudicate enforcement actions was unconstitutional.
Chad Mizelle, chief of staff for Attorney General Pam Bondi, shared a copy of the letter on X and told The New York Times that the administration is taking the necessary steps to challenge the “unelected and constitutionally unaccountable” administrative law judges.
“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,” he added.
Mizelle said that the administrative law judges have “exercised immense power for far too long.”
Bondi also shook up ‘official’ Washington on Friday when she announced that she has a Jeffrey Epstein’s client list.
The late Epstein was made infamous after a scandal that showed the financier was responsible for the human trafficking of minors while dealing with some of the most powerful, rich, and influential people in Hollywood and Washington, DC.
Since his death in prison, which was officially listed as a suicide, many have wondered which names appear on his secret client list. On Friday, Bondi said that the list was in her possession.
“It’s sitting on my desk right now to review,” she told Fox News’ “America Reports” co-anchor John Roberts. “That’s been a directive by President Trump.”
She also said that she is reviewing the files on the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“That’s all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies,” she said.
During an interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, Bondi told conservative influencer and podcaster Benny Johnson that President Trump “has given a very strong directive, and that’s going to be followed.”
ALJs are the enforcers of deep state petty tyranny .
This may end up being one of the more significant and under appreciated reforms the Trump Admin has made so far
“Bondi told conservative influencer and podcaster Benny Johnson that President Trump “has given a very strong directive, and that’s going to be followed.””
Way to go BENNY!
https://www.youtube.com/bennyjohnson
Can someone please translate this into layman’s terms?
There’s a lot of negatives upon negatives here.
Supreme Court 9, Administrative State 0
On April 14, 2023, the Supreme Court struck a blow supporting our Constitution and individual liberties. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, citizens began losing many freedoms through administrative edicts. Appeals of these regulations had to be made to courts within an agency, which has already found the people guilty. Such power harks back to discretions of English kings unrestrained by Parliament found in such places as King’s Council and the Star Chamber.
The Supreme Court acted to reassert the jurisdiction of district and circuit courts and the legislature as established by the Constitution. All power was to reside there, so Americans could avoid the sad experience of English citizens. Justice Kagan delivered the unanimous opinion of the court saying, “One respondent attacks as well the combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in a single agency….They maintain in essence that the agencies as currently structured, are unconstitutional in much of their work”.
You and I could relate too many examples of people’s frustrating experiences facing government bureaucrats. Their sufferings cause me to reflect on a passage where Fredrick Douglass describes overseer duties. I only substituted for the words slave, overseer, and master.
“No matter how innocent a citizen might be it availed him nothing when accused by the bureaucrat of any violation of a regulation. To be accused was to be convicted and to be convicted was to be punished….To escape punishment was to escape accusation….few citizens had the fortune to do either under the overseership of the agency.”
Supreme Court 9, Administrative State 0
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4145682/posts
The History and Danger of Administrative Law
https://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/
As near as I can tell, unelected judges have wrapped themselves in regulations that aren’t laws and aren’t constitutional to protect themselves. Trump and Bondi are removing those regulations and removing the judges that think they can stop Trump.
most excellent.
Constitution the enemy of the Marxists and Communists.
I don't think Trump and Bondi now have the power to remove judges. Unfortunately, that still requires impeachment in the House with a simple majority and subsequent remove via the Senate with a 2/3 vote to remove.
I believe the 'regulations' that have been removed were serving to make it difficult or prevent impeachment and removal by Congress.
The decision follows growing frustration within the Trump administration over [ludicrous] judicial roadblocks to its executive actions.
There fixed it.
These are judges operating in federal agencies IOW not judicial branch
My misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification!
Phew. I was afraid you were going to ask me to make it make sense.
It is the prohibition of prohibitive/restrictive/proscriptive injunctions.
thank you
Very good.
Good post.
I think that is the plan.
It makes sense—if the judges are in the executive branch the President should be able to remove them at will.
It would probably be easier to just fire all of them at once—save the taxpayers money with just one court case.
Lol.
arg...AJLs should be ALJs
“It is the prohibition of prohibitive/restrictive/proscriptive injunctions.”
Have you even TRIED say that out loud??? I’m still dealing with tongue cramps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.