Fired DOJ immigration judges granted rare full-court appellate hearing

Two former federal immigration judges who are challenging their 2025 terminations have been granted a rare full-court review in their case that alleges their firings were unlawful.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Wednesday granted a request for an initial en banc review in Jackler v. DOJ, a case involving two immigration judges whom the Department of Justice fired last year, citing authority under Article II of the Constitution.

Washington Litigation Group is representing fired immigration judges Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch. The appellants argue that their terminations occurred without cause or due process, in direct violation of the Civil Service Reform Act, which entitles career federal employees to “pre-termination processes.”

The outcome of the case could determine presidential firing authority of career federal employees more broadly.

“The Federal Circuit’s decision to hear this case en banc indicates how important this appeal is,” Nathaniel Zelinsky, senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group, said Wednesday. “The government has asserted a constitutional right to neuter the laws that protect our nation’s public servants from abuse and discrimination. That is as legally wrong as it is deeply unjust. We look forward to arguing this matter before the full court of appeals.”

“En banc,” or full bench, hearings in appellate courts are rarely granted; they are usually reserved for exceptional cases. The vast majority of the time, three-judge panels decide individual appeals. The last en banc hearing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held was last summer in a case involving President Donald Trump’s 10% worldwide tariffs.

For Jackler v. DOJ, “a poll was requested and taken, and the court decided that the petition for review warrants en banc consideration,” the court wrote in its order Wednesday.

The order gives no timeframe for oral arguments, but Washington Litigation Group said the hearing would likely take place this fall.

The upcoming appeals court hearing comes after the Merit Systems Protection Board in March upheld the firings of Jackler and Jaroch, reversing an MSPB administrative judge’s initial ruling last August. The board asserted that their terminations were allowed under Article II of the Constitution, which gives the president power to fire “inferior officers.” Historically, that constitutional power has been reserved only for personnel decisions involving political appointees.

The March 20 decision said DOJ immigration judges, who are career federal employees, should be considered “inferior officers,” and are therefore at-will and not entitled to civil service adverse action proceedings. The two current MSPB members, both Republicans, also stated more broadly that the board does not have jurisdiction to intervene in agency firing decisions that cite constitutional authority.

In September 2025, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued its own opinion on the matter, asserting that the terminations were constitutionally permissible. DOJ later said it was “confident” that MSPB’s decision would withstand legal scrutiny.

During his nomination hearing this week, James Woodruff, a Republican MSPB member and Trump’s pick to serve as the board’s chairman, told lawmakers MSPB’s jurisdiction is relatively narrow.

“What we look at when we’re deciding these cases and having them brought before us is what did Congress give us as far as authority goes? And within that small jurisdiction, whether or not we have the authority to act — that’s really how confined we keep it,” Woodruff said.

Woodruff was one of 11 nominees in a jam-packed confirmation hearing on Wednesday with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. HSGAC Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.), while questioning Woodruff, raised concerns about MSPB’s decision in Jackler v. DOJ.

“I’m troubled by the procedural ruling in March of 2026 where actually the board made the decision that they can determine what law is constitutional or not,” Peters said.

“As far as that case goes, it’s ongoing pending litigation with the Federal Circuit, and therefore I can’t really comment on that,” Woodruff replied.

In April, a group of Senate Democrats filed an amicus brief in Jackler v. DOJ, urging an en banc appeals court hearing. The lawmakers said MSPB’s decision, if upheld, could broadly expand presidential authority to fire federal employees at-will and pose “serious consequences” for civil service protections.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who led the amicus brief, expressed support for the order this week granting an en banc review.

“The Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision which allowed the attorney general to fire immigration judges at will is not only wrong on its merits, but it also sets a dangerous precedent that could threaten employees across the federal workforce,” Van Hollen said Wednesday. “Our immigration judges must have full protection under the law and the removals of Jackler and Jaroch are in clear violation of the Civil Service Reform Act. I will continue pressing their case and fighting to preserve critical safeguards for our civil servants across the federal government.”

If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email drew.friedman@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at drewfriedman.11

Copyright © 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.