In a significant development, two former U.S. immigration judges have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following the dismissal of their case by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The judges, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, were terminated by the Department of Justice on February 14, 2025, under what has been described as a broader pattern of federal worker terminations. They challenged their dismissal, claiming a lack of adherence to federal civil service termination procedures.
The MSPB initially found in favor of the judges, agreeing that the Justice Department had indeed neglected required pre-termination procedures. This ruling was, however, short-lived as the board subsequently concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. It determined that the case raised constitutional questions, particularly regarding whether statutory removal protections conflicted with the president’s executive powers under Article II of the Constitution. This decision pivoted around the classification of the judges as “inferior officers,” a status that permits greater executive control according to some interpretations of the Appointments Clause of Article II.
This clause delineates the roles of “principal” and “inferior” officers within the executive branch, allowing Congress to delegate the appointment or removal of the latter category to the president or executive agencies. Historically, “inferior officers” have predominantly been political appointees, not judges. However, the MSPB likened immigration judges to political appointees, citing their significant administrative and policymaking responsibilities, particularly with the wide-ranging implications of immigration decisions. As a result, the board concluded that federal civil service protections do not extend to them, as reported by JURIST.
The former judges have expressed strong opposition to this ruling, suggesting it deviates from the traditional view of their roles within the executive branch. Their attorney, Nathaniel Zelinsky, highlighted the potential repercussions of the MSPB’s decision, suggesting it might erode longstanding protections for federal employees, as noted in a discussion in ABA Journal. Zelinsky warned that this could pave the way for dismissals based on political, gender, racial, or religious grounds, fundamentally undermining the civil service’s historical independence and security.
The issue raises critical questions about the balance of power within the federal government and the nature of employment protections for immigration judges. As legal professionals and corporations monitor this evolving situation, the outcome could set a precedent affecting the tenure and impartiality of thousands of federal workers. This case underscores enduring tensions in U.S. governance regarding the separation of powers and the evolving scope of executive authority.