Could Jackler v. DOJ Weaken Civil Service Rights?
An agricultural commodity grader and a federal immigration judge may seem to have little in common. Yet a new congressional brief in Jackler v. Department of Justice argues that the Merit Systems Protection Board’s reasoning could place both within the same constitutional category—and potentially weaken their civil service protections.
Forty-six members of Congress filed the brief as the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit prepares to consider whether presidential removal authority can override statutory protections for certain federal employees.
Why the “Inferior Officer” Label Matters
The case involves immigration judges Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, who were removed without the procedures generally provided under 5 U.S.C. § 7513.
The MSPB concluded that immigration judges exercise significant policymaking and administrative authority and therefore qualify as “inferior officers” under Article II of the Constitution. Based on that classification, the Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review their removals.
That reasoning creates a potentially significant question: How many other career federal employees could be placed in the same category?
Congress Warns That the Reasoning Has No Clear Limit
The congressional brief compares immigration judges with several federal occupational series, including Customs and Border Protection officers, passport and visa examiners, and agricultural commodity graders.
Agricultural commodity graders examine products and determine their official United States grade. They exercise judgment and make decisions on behalf of the government, but that has not traditionally meant they serve at the President’s pleasure.
The lawmakers’ argument is not that these positions perform identical work. Their concern is that many federal employees exercise meaningful governmental authority. Without a clear limiting principle, the “inferior officer” label could potentially reach far beyond immigration judges.
What Section 7513 Protects
For covered federal employees, 5 U.S.C. § 7513 generally provides several essential procedural protections before a serious adverse action becomes final:
- Advance written notice of the proposed action
- A meaningful opportunity to respond
- A written decision explaining the agency’s reasons
- The right to appeal to the MSPB
These protections help ensure that removals, suspensions, and demotions are supported by evidence rather than political pressure, retaliation, or arbitrary decision-making.
Congress’s brief argues that these safeguards are part of the civil service structure Congress deliberately created and should not disappear merely because an employee exercises judgment for the federal government.
Your Rights Have Not Changed Yet
The filing of this brief did not eliminate or reduce federal employees’ rights. The MSPB’s decision remains under review, and the Federal Circuit has not issued a final ruling.
The mindful response is attention, not panic. Federal employees should continue to read disciplinary notices carefully, preserve relevant documents, identify the legal authority cited by the agency, and calendar every response and appeal deadline.
The outcome of Jackler could become highly consequential. For now, however, covered employees still retain the procedural protections provided by Section 7513 unless and until the law changes.
Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.