Administrative Law
Job protections for administrative law judges are unconstitutional, DOJ concludes
The U.S. Department of Justice has concluded that “multiple layers of removal restrictions” for administrative law judges are unconstitutional. (Photo by Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
The U.S. Department of Justice has concluded that “multiple layers of removal restrictions” for administrative law judges are unconstitutional.
The decision was revealed in a Feb. 20 press release from the DOJ, a Feb. 20 letter to Republican U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and a Feb. 11 court filing, report Law360, Reuters and the New York Times.
The administrative law judges are protected by two laws, the letter says. One says administrative law judges can be removed “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board.” Another says board members may be removed by a president “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
The laws violate a president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution by restricting their “ability to remove principal executive officers, who are in turn restricted in their ability to remove inferior executive officers,” the letter says.
Administrative law judges decide disputes in administrative hearings for executive branch agencies that include the Social Security Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, according to Law360 and the New York Times.
The New York Times called the decision “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.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
