US declares administrative law judge removal rules unconstitutional
Source: Reuters
February 21, 2025 12:30 PM EST Updated an hour ago
WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has determined that multiple layers of removal restrictions shielding administrative law judges are unconstitutional and will no longer defend them in court, top officials said on Thursday. Chad Mizelle, the department's chief of staff, called the administrative law judges, who preside over administrative disputes in the federal government, "unelected and constitutionally unaccountable."
In a letter to U.S. Senator Charles Grassley that Mizelle posted on X, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote that the Justice Department would no longer defend removal restrictions for administrative law judges against challenges in courts. The Justice Department's policy shift comes as Republican President Donald Trump and his ally, the billionaire Elon Musk, seek to reduce the power of several federal regulatory agencies. It also comes after several decisions curbing the authority of U.S. agencies by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose conservative justices have indicated skepticism toward expansive regulatory power.
Last year, the Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's use of in-house administrative law judges to decide enforcement actions protecting investors from securities fraud. Conservative and business groups have said the SEC has an unfair advantage litigating cases before its own judges. Administrative judges operate separately from judges who preside over federal courts, who are known as Article III judges for the section of the U.S. Constitution that established the judiciary.
Administrative judges adjudicate matters within agencies that come under the executive branch, which include the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Drug Enforcement Administration. 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 the group was waiting for more information.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-declares-administrative-law-judge-removal-rules-unconstitutional-2025-02-21/
Walleye
(43,834 posts)Easterncedar
(5,532 posts)Walleye
(43,834 posts)hadEnuf
(3,527 posts)Sounds pretty Constitutional to me. The DOJ does not interpret the Constitution so they can arbitrarily fire judges.
These MAGATs are playing fast and loose with the Constitution. Once they literally discard it, how do we address that and enforce it again?
BumRushDaShow
(165,821 posts)in this case, they are arguing, based on a ridiculous case that the SCOTUS recently ruled on last year, that "judges" should only be "Article III" ones and not sort of "deputized" as "judges" under "Article II".
The OP article references this -
June 27, 2024 4:46 PM EDT Updated 8 months ago
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional the Securities and Exchange Commission's in-house enforcement of laws protecting investors against securities fraud, dealing a blow on Thursday to the agency's powers in a ruling that could reverberate through other federal regulators.
The decision, a setback for President Joe Biden's administration, upheld a lower court's ruling siding with a Texas-based hedge fund manager who contested the legality of the SEC's actions against him after the agency determined he had committed securities fraud.
The 6-3 decision was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, with the court's conservative justices in the majority and the liberal justices dissenting. The court ruled that agency proceedings seeking penalties for fraud that are handled by SEC itself instead of in federal court violate the U.S. Constitution's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. "The SEC's anti-fraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and it is well established that common law claims must be heard by a jury," Roberts wrote.
It was the latest decision curbing the authority of U.S. agencies powered by the Supreme Court's conservatives, who have indicated skepticism toward expansive federal regulatory power. Thursday's ruling opens the door to challenges to other federal agencies in-house enforcement schemes, as the liberal justices expressed doubt that the decision can be limited only to fraud actions pursued by the SEC.
(snip)
There are a number of agencies - notably SSA - that uses these types of "administrative judges" for adjudication. The issue that would need to be teased out is whether the courts can handle the types of adjudications that the immigration judges or SSA judges, or I expect even what the NLRB administrative judges are involved in (who do unfair labor practices hearings, etc).
neohippie
(1,258 posts)Administrative Judges are not Article III judges and these actions appear to follow the Supreme Court's ruling about federal agencies having too much power to regulate from what I can gather reading about this
Not to say this isn't all part of Musk and Trumps plans to gut federal agencies and take as much enforcement power as they can away from them. If they have their way they will dismantle as much of the federal government as possible
James48
(5,094 posts)Are who would be enforcing fines issued by the FAA. You would have to have an administrative judge hear a case and decide.
This is about disarming all judges who could adversely rule against any of his companies for violating the law.