The Trump administration asserted that President Trump has the authority to fire administrative law judges at will, contradicting a statute that requires cause for their removal. This claim, detailed in a letter from acting solicitor general Sarah M. Harris, challenges Congress’ ability to shield executive branch officials from political interference. Administrative law judges, who oversee significant decisions in agencies like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Board, are typically protected from arbitrary firing. The Justice Department has stopped defending the law supporting such protections, aligning with the administration’s unitary executive theory that seeks to expand presidential powers.
The Trump administration informed Congress on Thursday that it believed President Trump had the authority to dismiss administrative law judges at will, despite existing legislation that safeguards such officials from removal without cause, such as misconduct.
This action marks yet another phase in the administration’s ongoing effort to undermine the foundational framework of the federal government and to challenge Congress’s ability to protect various executive branch officials in sensitive roles from political meddling by the White House. The administration revealed this stance in a letter from Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general.
Administrative law judges oversee hearings within executive branch agencies. Though they are officials within the executive branch rather than life-tenured members of the judiciary, they fulfill judicial duties, which include administering oaths, taking testimony, ruling on evidence matters, and making determinations of fact and law.
Examples of such officials include judges from the Social Security Administration who deal with disputes regarding disability and retirement benefits; judges from the National Labor Relations Board who adjudicate unfair labor practice cases; and judges from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who address disputes related to electric utilities and regional power systems.
To shield these officials from political interference, Congress enacted a law stating that disciplinary actions, including terminations, may occur against such judges “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after an opportunity for a hearing before the board.”
Ms. Harris’s correspondence to Congress also highlighted that the Justice Department had declared it would no longer support the constitutionality of the law protecting administrative law judges in a relatively unnoticed filing on Feb. 11 in an appeals court case.
In that instance, a paint company is contesting a penalty assessed by an administrative law judge at the Transportation Department for violating a federal regulation that mandates paint cans be packaged to prevent leakage during air transport. The company asserts, among other arguments, that since the president cannot remove such a judge at will, the judge’s position is unconstitutional.
In alignment with this position, Ms. Harris referred to a 2010 Supreme Court decision that invalidated a statute under which Congress had established a specific agency insulated from presidential control through two layers. The agency’s board members could only be dismissed for cause, and they were overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose members also had protection from removal without cause.
Similarly, Ms. Harris argued, administrative law judges are not only shielded by the statute stipulating that they can only be removed for cause, but Congress also designated the Merit Systems Protection Board to decide whether such cause exists, thus removing that power from the president.
This board — an essential component of the civil service protections that Congress established to professionalize the federal workforce and prevent political favoritism — is itself protected from direct presidential influence by a statute stating that its members “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Notably, Mr. Trump has already breached the latter statute by firing Cathy Harris, the chairwoman of the board summarily, which led to her lawsuit. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily reinstated her position, although the Trump administration has appealed.
Sarah M. Harris previously informed Congress that the administration viewed restrictions on the ability to fire members of independent agencies as unconstitutional as well.
The Trump administration has adopted an ideology known as the unitary executive theory. This doctrine claims that the Constitution should be reinterpreted to prevent Congress from placing any restrictions on the president’s capacity to exert total control over the executive branch, including the ability to dismiss subordinates at will.
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has contravened numerous statutes where Congress specified limits on the conditions under which various officials can be dismissed, including inspectors general, members of independent agencies, and civil servants.
Many of these dismissals have resulted in legal challenges, creating test cases to determine if the Supreme Court will nullify these statutes and broaden the authority of Mr. Trump and future presidents.
In a statement, Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, praised the administration’s initiative to contest the statute protecting administrative law judges from political influence from the White House.
“Unelected and constitutionally unaccountable A.L.J.s have wielded considerable power for far too long,” he stated. “In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, the department is re-establishing constitutional accountability so that executive branch officials are answerable to both the president and the populace.”