Fired US immigration judges appeal to federal court following administrative board denial News
G. Edward Johnson, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Fired US immigration judges appeal to federal court following administrative board denial

Two fired immigration judges filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday after the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ruled that their dismissal complied with the constitutional powers of the president.

Immigration judges Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch were fired on February 14, 2025, by the Justice Department (DOJ) as part of a larger pattern of federal worker terminations. The judges were terminated without notice or other federal civil service termination procedures.

The two judges, appointed in 2021 and converted to permanent positions in 2023, appealed to the MSPB after their dismissal, asserting that they are federal workers covered by the federal civil service statute. An administrative judge agreed, finding that the agency failed to provide the necessary pre-termination procedures and ordered them to be reinstated with interim relief.

On review however, the MSPB determined that the case involved constitutional considerations. The board concluded that it had authority to consider the DOJ’s argument as an as-applied constitutional challenge, specifically whether statutory removal protections could be enforced consistent with executive powers enumerated in Article II of the Constitution.

The Appointments Clause of Article II distinguishes “principal officers” and “inferior officers” in the executive branch. Principal officers include major government positions like department heads, ambassadors, and Supreme Court justices, who are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. Conversely, for inferior officers, Congress can and has delegated sole appointment or firing authority to the president and executive agencies.

The board found that the appellants were inferior officers, over which the DOJ and the executive branch had appointment authority, despite such authority historically being understood to cover political appointees as opposed to judges. It reasoned that the judges, similarly to political appointees, exercised substantial administrative and policymaking authority, particularly given the broad domestic and international implications of immigration adjudication. Accordingly, the board determined that the judges were not entitled to federal civil service protections.

The former judges criticized the ruling, arguing the board has strayed from the historical understanding of administrative judge’s role in the executive branch. Their counsel, Nathaniel Zelinsky, warned the decision could undermine longstanding safeguards for federal employees, stating:

[It] contradicts more than a century of binding Supreme Court precedent, dating to the 1800s. Under the board’s breathtaking decision, the president can now fire these hardworking men and women, many of them military veterans like Brandon and Megan, based on political affiliation, race, gender or even religion—or for no reason at all. That is incredibly dangerous, and it should scare all Americans.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Last Quaker executed for religious beliefs in American colonies

On March 24, 1661, William Ledda, executed in Boston, became the last Quaker in the American colonies to be put to death for his religious beliefs. Learn more about the persecution of the Quakers in colonial Massachusetts.

Archbishop Óscar Romero assassinated

On March 24, 1980, Archbishop Óscar Romero was assassinated while celebrating Mass in San Salvador, El Salvador by a right-wing death squad. Romero had become unpopular with conservative elements in the country when he began speaking out against government repression of the nation's poor and of his fellow priests. Read a biography of Archbishop Óscar Romero from the Kellogg Institute at Notre Dame University. In 2003, the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), an American human-rights organization, filed a lawsuit in the United States against former Salvadorean Air Force Captain Álvaro Rafael Saravia for his alleged role in the assassination of Archbishop Romero. The suit was filed in a US federal district court under the Alien Tort Claim Act (28 U.S.C. § 1350). In Doe v. Rafael Saravia, the defendant was found guilty of crimes against humanity and extrajudicial killing, resulting in a $10 million judgment against Saravia. Read a description of the case. Romero was later canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church in 2018.