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

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish "the People"

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish “the People”

A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debt discharge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.

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.

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 !!