Jackler v. DOJ and MSPB Appeal Rights
Federal employees should be watching Jackler v. Department of Justice closely. The case involves two career immigration judges, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, who were removed from federal service in February 2025. According to the record described in the transcript, they received no notice, no stated cause, and no chance to respond before losing their jobs. The government’s own documents later suggested they were treated as probationary by mistake. That matters because due process is not a technicality. It is often the only moment an employee has to correct a false assumption before the damage is done.
The full Federal Circuit has now agreed to hear the case en banc. That is rare. It means the court is not treating this as a routine personnel dispute, but as a major question about how far civil-service protections reach when the government invokes presidential removal power.
The Fight Over Title 5 Protections
For many covered federal employees, 5 U.S.C. § 7513 is the foundation of adverse-action protection. It generally requires advance written notice, the reasons for the proposed action, a reasonable opportunity to respond, representation rights, and a written decision. Those requirements create a disciplined process before the government takes away a career employee’s livelihood.
The government’s argument in Jackler is much broader. It contends that Article II allows the President to remove certain “inferior officers” at will, and that this constitutional authority overrides the ordinary protections Congress placed in Title 5. In March 2026, the MSPB accepted that theory and concluded it lacked power to hear the judges’ appeals.
That is the point that should concern federal employees beyond the immigration-court system. If an agency can characterize a removal as an Article II action, the risk is that MSPB review disappears before anyone reaches the question of whether the agency followed the law.
Why Recordkeeping Is a Form of Protection
No one can responsibly predict how this appeal will end. But the case is a reminder that federal employees should protect their records before a crisis arrives. Save your SF-50s, appointment documents, performance ratings, disciplinary letters, awards, position descriptions, and any notice changing your status or duties. If your agency later claims you were probationary, temporary, excepted, or outside ordinary appeal rights, the documents may matter immediately.
Mindfulness in this context does not mean pretending the risk is small. It means responding with steadiness. When the legal landscape feels unstable, the most grounded step is to preserve facts.
Southworth PC focuses on federal employment litigation, including MSPB removals and adverse actions, and offers free consultations for federal employees facing these kinds of fights.
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.