Posted on 02/21/2025 7:12:28 AM PST by george76
The Department of Justice under President Trump has determined that the multiple layers of removal restrictions shielding administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional.
The DOJ has concluded that current laws make it too difficult for the government to remove ALJs from their positions. These laws require multiple steps and layers of approval before an ALJ can be fired, which limits the President’s power.
ALJs in the United States are supposed to be “impartial officials” who preside over administrative hearings within federal agencies. They operate within the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
A letter from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) outlined the DOJ’s stance, explaining that restrictions preventing the removal of ALJs under 5 U.S.C. 1202(d) and 7521(a) are unconstitutional under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
5 U.S.C. 1202(d) states, “Any member may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
5 U.S.C 7521(a) states, “An action may be taken against an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title by the agency in which the administrative law judge is employed only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.”
The DOJ’s position aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2010 Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. decision, which struck down similar “multilayer protection from removal” for executive officers. The Court ruled that such barriers were an unconstitutional infringement on the president’s authority to oversee executive officers.
In the DOJ letter, Harris referenced this ruling, emphasizing that removal restrictions preventing ALJs from being held accountable create an unconstitutional chain of protection, limiting the president’s ability to ensure executive officials serve the public interest.
The DOJ has also announced it will no longer defend these removal restrictions in court, a major policy shift.
The letter reads:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530D, I am writing to advise you that the Department of Justice has concluded that the multiple layers of removal restrictions for administrative law judges (ALJs) in 5 U.S.C. 1202(d) and 7521(a) violate the Constitution, that the Department will no longer defend them in court, and that the Department has taken that position in ongoing litigation. See 2/11/25 Letter, Axalta Coating Systems LLC v. FAA, No. 23-2376 (3d Cir.).
In Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), the Supreme Court determined that granting “multilayer protection from removal” to executive officers “is contrary to Article Il’s vesting of the executive power in the President.” Id. at 484.
The President may not “be restricted in his ability to remove a principal [executive] officer, who is in turn restricted in his ability to remove an inferior [executive] officer.” Ibid.
A federal statute provides that a federal agency may remove an ALJ “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.” 5 U.S.C. 7521(a).
Another statute provides that a member of the Board “may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 5 U.S.C. 1202(d).
Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Free Enterprise Fund, the Department has determined that those statutory provisions violate Article II by restricting the President’s ability to remove principal executive officers, who are in turn restricted in their ability to remove inferior executive officers.
...
More from far-left New York Times:
The Trump administration told Congress on Thursday that it believed President Trump had the constitutional power to summarily fire administrative law judges at will, despite a statute that protects such officials from being removed without a cause like misconduct.
The move was the latest step in the administration’s unfolding assault on the basic structure of the federal government and on Congress’ power to insulate various types of executive branch officials in sensitive positions from political interference from the White House. The Trump administration disclosed its approach in a letter from Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general.
Administrative law judges preside over administrative hearings in executive branch agencies. They are executive branch officials, not life-tenured members of the judicial branch, but they still perform judges’ role, including by administering oaths, taking testimony, ruling on evidentiary questions, and making factual and legal determinations.
Examples of such officials include Social Security Administration judges who handle disputes about disability and retirement benefits; National Labor Relations Board judges who resolve unfair labor practice cases; and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission judges who hear disputes about matters like electric utilities and regional grids.
To insulate the officials from political interference, Congress enacted a statute that says disciplinary action, including firings, may be taken against such judges “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the board.”
The very idea of “Administrative Law Judges” is unconstitutional, an affront to the Separation of Powers principle.
We may actually get back to a constitutional government if President Trump keeps this up :)
The deep state's going down.
Administrative law judges aren’t judges.
That is, they’re not part of the Judicial Branch, as established under Article III of the Constitution.
They’re Executive Branch employees, part of the same departments they pretend to be adjudicating.
That SCOTUS allowed them to be created in the first place is a travesty, a rejection of Separation of Powers, and one of the worst legacies the Progressives have saddled us with.
To insulate the officials from political interference
Correction. I should have not called them “judges”. I should have called them Agency law enforcers.
Now let me get this straight:
An Administrative Law Judge cannot be fired by the President because of Administrative Law?......................
It was my hope that Trump was more or less tolerant of these whack a mole judges until he got Patel confirmed. The next day we have this. It is a very good sign.
Every day it get clearer and clearer.
Wonder WHICH administration created these “rules?”
The heart of it, stated incorrectly by the NYSlimes:
“The move was the latest step in the administration’s unfolding assault on the basic structure of the federal government and on Congress’ power to insulate various types of executive branch officials in sensitive positions from political interference from the White House.”
The move is to try to correct and end Congress’ attempts to create an unaccountable fourth branch of government - the administrative state; the regulatory state.
Administrative legal judgments are not bound by the normal legal procedures and are accountable to nobody. An Admin Law Judge can make totally illegal rulings and the only recourse is a very expensive appeals process to the real court system which very few victims of the ALJ abuse of the legal system can afford.
This is how. the government gets away with petty tyrrany and this removal of the shield of liability is provides long needed accountability to these unaccountable petty judicial tyrants.
How dare they try to take the crown and sceptre away from judges.
.
in my first appearance before an ALJ for child support and custody, I got railroaded. Later on in MN it was found to be unconstitutional for ALJs to rule over/adjudicate these matters. That was a slight bit of relief, but the system was largely against me and our child’s interests throughout the entire process from birth to emancipation.
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.