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

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative Judges

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative “Judges”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that restrictions on the removal of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris notified Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley that the DOJ will no longer defend these protections in court. DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle emphasized that unelected ALJs have wielded excessive authority without accountability for too long and must be answerable to the President and the American people.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

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 !!