DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative Judges

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative “Judges”

Acting Solicitor General of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Sarah Harris sent a letter to President Pro Tempore of the US Senate Charles Grassley on Thursday sharing the DOJ’s determination that removal restrictions for administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional and that the DOJ no longer intends to defend them in court.

The DOJ justified its finding based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. The court in that case ruled that the president being “restricted in his ability to remove a principal [executive] officer, who is in turn restricted in his ability to remove an inferior [executive] officer,” violates the president’s ability to adhere to his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle stated:

“Unelected and constitutionally unaccountable ALJs have exercised immense power for far too long. In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, the Department is restoring constitutional accountability so that Executive Branch officials answer to the President and to the people.”

ALJs are officials appointed by the heads of executive agencies and serve as the triers of law and fact for disputes concerning an agency’s law. Federal agencies are prohibited from removing their ALJs except “for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board [(MSPB)] on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.” Additionally, the members of the board serve seven-year terms and can only be removed by the president “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Screen Shot 2025 02 22 at 11.45.55 AM

Screen Shot 2025 02 22 at 11.46.01 AM

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

 

The Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) found the DOJ’s determination to be an unlawful overreach into the independence of the ALJs’ adjudication proceedings. Judge Som Ramrup stated: “Administrative law judges carry out the law and should be free from political pressures. They are not at-will employees. The DOJ can say that removal protections designed to shield ALJs are unconstitutional, but that is not supported by law.”

The AALJ has encouraged the president to remove policymakers and heads of executive agencies instead of ALJs so that the president can ensure that US laws are faithfully executed while also preserving judicial impartiality.

The DOJ’s determination follows MSPB chair Cathy Harris’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump for removing her without reason. Head of the Office of the Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger also filed a lawsuit against Trump for removing him without reason, asserting that he can be removed by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” After a federal district court sided with Dellinger and blocked Trump’s removal, Trump requested the Supreme Court vacate the district court’s order.

Leave your vote

3873711 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

In a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Kevin: Realworldfare and Corey: Walker expose Riverside Court Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner’s unlawful railroading under color of law and total absence of jurisdiction. Despite a pending Quiet Title Action and perfected federal removal, Wagner issued void orders to dispossess the Walker Estate—yet the Estate remains lawfully and firmly in possession. Now under Article III jurisdiction, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato presides over the live case, which alleges constitutional violations, commercial fraud, and abuse of process. This is a high-stakes confrontation between equity and overreach—where immunity fails and facts prevail.

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges are not immune when they operate outside lawful jurisdiction, conspire under color of law, or engage in commercial enforcement without consent. Under the Clearfield Doctrine, they become corporate actors subject to liability like any private party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 enables civil rights lawsuits against them individually, while 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 provides for criminal penalties for conspiracy and deprivation of rights. Through tort law, UCC, and case law like Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), and Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), judges can face personal and injunctive accountability.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!