US declares administrative law judge removal rules unconstitutional

By Jasper Ward and Luc Cohen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has determined that multiple layers of removal restrictions shielding administrative law judges are unconstitutional and will no longer defend them in court, top officials said on Thursday.

Chad Mizelle, the department's chief of staff, called the administrative law judges, who preside over administrative disputes in the federal government, "unelected and constitutionally unaccountable."

In a letter to U.S. Senator Charles Grassley that Mizelle posted on X, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote that the Justice Department would no longer defend removal restrictions for administrative law judges against challenges in courts.

The Justice Department's policy shift comes as Republican President Donald Trump and his ally, the billionaire Elon Musk, seek to reduce the power of several federal regulatory agencies.

It also comes after several decisions curbing the authority of U.S. agencies by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose conservative justices have indicated skepticism toward expansive regulatory power.

Last year, the Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's use of in-house administrative law judges to decide enforcement actions protecting investors from securities fraud. Conservative and business groups have said the SEC has an unfair advantage litigating cases before its own judges.

Administrative judges operate separately from judges who preside over federal courts, who are known as Article III judges for the section of the U.S. Constitution that established the judiciary. Administrative judges adjudicate matters within agencies that come under the executive branch, which include the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A spokesperson for the Association of Administrative Law Judges, a union that represents 910 administrative law judges who adjudicate cases at the Social Security Administration, said the group was waiting for more information.

Last week, the union asked a judge to block Musk and the Trump cost-cutting effort known as the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing their personal and employment records. The union said the disclosure of workers' personal information poses a security risk.

Justice Department lawyers representing Musk and Doge said in court filing on Wednesday that DOGE and the other defendants had not made any public disclosure of sensitive personal records.

Musk and DOGE did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

(Reporting by Jasper Ward in Washington and Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Sandra Maler, Leigh Jones and Christian Schmollinger)