Job Protection Rules for Administrative Law Judges Are Unconstitutional, Says DOJ

The Department of Justice in Washington on Feb. 12, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said on Feb. 20 that it has determined that multiple layers of removal restrictions shielding administrative law judges are unconstitutional and that it will no longer defend them in court.

Administrative law judges (ALJs) preside over administrative disputes in the federal government and are appointed by the heads of executive agencies.

Chad Mizelle, the DOJ’s chief of staff, said in a statement that “unelected and constitutionally unaccountable ALJs have exercised immense power for far too long.”

“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,” Mizelle said.

The policy shift was outlined in a letter from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), which was posted by Mizelle on social media platform X.

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,” Harris wrote in the letter.

ALJs operate separately from judges who preside over federal courts and who are known as Article III judges for the section of the U.S. Constitution that established the judiciary.

They typically adjudicate matters within agencies such as the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Under U.S. law, a federal agency may take action against or remove an administrative law judge “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board. ”

Harris highlighted the law regarding removals as well as another statute that provides that any member of the Merit Systems Protection Board “may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Harris pointed to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling (Free Enterprise Fund v Public Company Oversight Board) that determined that granting “multilayer protection from removal” to executive officers “is contrary to Article II’s vesting of the executive power in the President.”

“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,” Harris wrote.

A spokesperson for the Association of Administrative Law Judges, a union that represents 910 administrative law judges who adjudicate cases at the Social Security Administration, said that the group was waiting for more information.

Last week, the union asked a judge to block Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing their personal and employment records. The union said the disclosure of workers’ personal information poses a security risk.

DOJ lawyers representing Musk and DOGE said in a court filing on Feb. 19 that DOGE and the other defendants had not made any public disclosure of sensitive personal records.

The Epoch Times has contacted the White House for comment.

Reuters contributed to this report.