In February 2025, President Donald Trump's Justice Department told Congress that it had concluded federal laws providing multiple layers of job protection for administrative law judges were unconstitutional. The department said it would no longer defend those restrictions in court, setting up a significant dispute over presidential control of officials who conduct hearings inside executive-branch agencies.
The position was formally disclosed in a February 20, 2025 letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson from Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris. The letter did not itself repeal the statutory protections or constitute a Supreme Court ruling. Instead, it announced the Justice Department's constitutional position and said the government had already taken that position in ongoing litigation.
What Protections Do Administrative Law Judges Have?
Administrative law judges, commonly called ALJs, preside over adjudicatory proceedings within federal agencies. Depending on the agency, they may conduct hearings, rule on evidence and motions, make findings of fact, and issue initial or recommended decisions.
For example, National Labor Relations Board ALJs hear and decide unfair-labor-practice cases, while Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ALJs handle contested matters involving areas such as electricity, natural gas and other energy regulation. Their decisions may be reviewed through the procedures established for the agency involved.
Federal law has traditionally limited an agency's ability to discipline or remove an ALJ. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7521, an agency may take specified actions against an administrative law judge, including removal, only for "good cause" established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board after an opportunity for a hearing.
The Merit Systems Protection Board itself also has statutory protection from direct presidential removal. Federal law states that a board member may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
Why the Justice Department Challenged the System
The Justice Department argued that combining those protections creates two layers between the president and an administrative law judge: the ALJ cannot ordinarily be removed without a good-cause determination by the Merit Systems Protection Board, while board members themselves have statutory protection from removal by the president.
Harris relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In that case, the Court held that a structure providing two layers of protection from presidential removal for certain executive officers violated the Constitution's separation-of-powers requirements.
The Justice Department maintained that the same constitutional reasoning applies to the protections covering federal ALJs and the Merit Systems Protection Board. In a public statement issued the same day as Harris' letter, the department said it had determined that the multiple layers of removal restrictions were unconstitutional.
That was the administration's legal position, however, rather than a new statute enacted by Congress or a nationwide judicial ruling automatically eliminating every ALJ's existing protections.
The Dispute Emerged in an FAA Case
The Justice Department's position had already surfaced in litigation involving Axalta Coating Systems LLC and the Federal Aviation Administration. Axalta challenged an FAA civil penalty stemming from the transportation of paint that leaked during air shipment.
Among several constitutional arguments, Axalta contended that the administrative law judge who heard its case was protected by an unconstitutional combination of removal restrictions. The Justice Department informed the court in February 2025 that it would no longer defend those protections.
What Happened Later in the Axalta Case?
Later developments showed why the Justice Department's announcement did not automatically resolve every case involving an ALJ.
On July 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision in Axalta Coating Systems LLC v. FAA. The court noted that the FAA was not defending the constitutionality of the ALJ's removal protections. But it concluded that Axalta was not entitled to have the agency's order overturned merely because the judge had allegedly unconstitutional removal protection.
The appeals court said a challenger must show that an unconstitutional removal restriction actually caused legally relevant harm. Because Axalta had not made that showing, the court declined to disturb the FAA's order on that basis.
Why the Issue Matters
The dispute concerns the balance between two principles that have shaped the federal administrative system: presidential authority to supervise executive-branch officials and Congress' use of statutory protections intended to promote independence in administrative adjudication.
Administrative law judges are not Article III federal judges with life tenure. They are officials within executive-branch agencies, but they perform adjudicatory functions that can affect benefits, labor disputes, regulatory penalties and other important matters.
The Trump administration's February 2025 action therefore represented a change in the federal government's litigation position on ALJ removal protections. It did not, by itself, mean that the president had immediately fired all such judges at will or that Congress' statutory language had disappeared. The practical effect of the constitutional argument has continued to depend on litigation, agency actions and subsequent court decisions.
0 Comments