En Banc Review Granted for Immigration Judges’ Lawsuit Against Dismissals
Two former federal immigration judges who are contesting their firings in 2025 have received an extraordinary opportunity for a full court hearing in their lawsuit, which they assert was unjust. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has approved an en banc review of the case Jackler v. Department of Justice, involving the termination of judges Megan Jackler and Brandon Jarrock by the Justice Department last year, disputing its authority under Article II of the Constitution.
Legal Representation and Allegations of Due Process Violations
The Washington Litigation Group is representing Jackler and Jarrock. The plaintiffs argue that their dismissals were executed without justification and violated due process rights, contravening the Civil Service Reform Act, which mandates “pre-dismissal procedures” for career federal employees.
Potential Implications for Presidential Firing Authority
The outcome of this litigation could significantly affect presidential powers regarding the termination of career federal employees. Nathaniel Zelinsky, senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group, emphasized the importance of the case, stating that the government’s claims regarding constitutional rights to disregard protective laws for federal employees are fundamentally incorrect.
Rare En Banc Hearings Highlighting the Case’s Significance
Full bench hearings, known as en banc reviews, are uncommon in the Court of Appeals, typically reserved for cases of exceptional importance. Generally, a panel of three judges adjudicates individual appeals. The last en banc hearing by the Federal Circuit occurred last summer, concerning President Donald Trump’s global tariff of 10%.
Timing and Background of the Case
The court’s order noted that a public opinion poll was conducted, which supported the need for an en banc review. While no specific schedule for oral arguments has been set, the Washington Litigation Group anticipates a hearing later this fall. This appellate review follows a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in March, which upheld the judges’ dismissals, reversing an earlier ruling by an MSPB administrative judge from August 2025.
MSPB’s Constitutional Interpretation and Broader Implications
The March 20 ruling permitted the dismissal of immigration judges—considered “inferior officials” under Article II—without adverse civil service proceedings. In a wider context, two Republican MSPB commissioners asserted that the board lacks the authority to intervene in these agency decisions, relying on constitutional grounds. The Justice Department further reinforced this viewpoint in September 2025, asserting that its actions were constitutionally justified.
Political Perspectives on the MSPB’s Jurisdiction
James Woodruff, a Republican MSPB member nominated by President Trump, addressed senators during his confirmation hearing, stating that the board’s jurisdiction is narrowly defined. Concerns were raised by HSGAC Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.) regarding the MSPB’s authority over constitutional matters in the Jackler case. In April, a group of Senate Democrats submitted an amicus brief urging for a full appellate hearing, cautioning that the MSPB’s ruling could broadly expand presidential powers over federal employees, with significant implications for job security and protections.
Support from Legislators for Judicial Protections
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a proponent of the court brief, called for en banc review, asserting that the MSPB’s decision undermines essential legal protections for immigration judges and sets a troubling precedent for federal workforce integrity. He stressed the need to uphold the Civil Service Reform Act, vowing to continue advocating for the rights of public servants throughout the federal system.
