Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bondi: “will no longer defend” the removal restrictions in court or in litigation regarding Administrative Law Judges.
Conservitive Brief ^ | 2/23/25 | Jon Dougherty

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.”


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: administrativelaw; judges; judgewatch; removal; restrictions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: Eccl 10:2

For sure


21 posted on 02/23/2025 2:16:01 PM PST by SMARTY (In politics, stupidity is not a handicap. Napoleon Bonaparte I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2

Yes, thanks for asking that.

I was wondering that, too.


22 posted on 02/23/2025 2:25:18 PM PST by metmom (He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Bookmarking


23 posted on 02/23/2025 2:29:47 PM PST by RandallFlagg (Democrats should have been barred from elections since The Battle Of Athens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EandH Dad

Good synopsis.

And as Vivek said when DOGE was being formed, we now have a fairly unprecedented window of opportunity to dismantle the administrative state, as the present Supreme Court has proven that it is willing to toss out regulations which have not been created by acts of Congress, but only by unelected executive department agencies. The “Chevron Desision” was a major victory and set the stage for more challenges to be decided the same way.


24 posted on 02/23/2025 3:10:52 PM PST by bigbob (Yes. We ARE going back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JesusIsLord

“I don’t think Trump and Bondi now have the power to remove judges.”

These are a different kind of judges. They’re not in the Judicial branch at all.

L


25 posted on 02/23/2025 3:25:47 PM PST by Lurker ( Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrZippy2k

Talkin turkey..wooop woop

https://rumble.com/v6oe4p6-heavenly-evermoe.html


26 posted on 02/23/2025 4:06:40 PM PST by aces (and )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
AJLs are generally considered Article II (Executive) judges, not Article III (Judicial) judges......

Thanks for the info.

27 posted on 02/23/2025 4:11:18 PM PST by JesusIsLord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
These are a different kind of judges. They’re not in the Judicial branch at all.

I learned something new. Tks.

28 posted on 02/23/2025 4:12:28 PM PST by JesusIsLord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: egfowler3

No. Didn’t try to say it; just did a cheap reductio on the other guy’s post.


29 posted on 02/23/2025 4:14:06 PM PST by Migraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JesusIsLord

Happy to be of service.

L


30 posted on 02/23/2025 4:14:20 PM PST by Lurker ( Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson