Two former immigration judges have appealed to the Federal Circuit court and requested that the entire court hear the case, rather than a traditional three-judge panel. In a rare procedural move, the court has agreed to conduct what’s called “en banc” review—a decision that will reshape how immigration judges can be terminated and what constitutional protections apply to their positions.
What changed
Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch were removed from their positions as immigration judges last year, with Article II of the Constitution cited as the sole justification for their termination. An administrative law judge overturned both employees’ firings, but in March, the Merit Systems Protection Board reversed that decision, in the process relinquishing jurisdiction over cases in which federal agencies cite constitutional authority to justify an adverse personnel action.
Now, instead of having three judges hear the appeal, the Federal Circuit has agreed that this appeal presents a once-in-a-generation constitutional question that merits review by the entire court. Appellate courts rarely grant such requests—the last instance in recent memory was when the same court agreed to hear legal challenges to President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, which the Supreme Court ultimately invalidated earlier this year.
Why it matters
This case will determine whether immigration judges qualify as “inferior officers” under Article II of the Constitution—a designation that would allow the Attorney General to fire them at will, without cause or civil service procedures. If the full circuit upholds the MSPB’s reasoning, millions of career federal employees could lose removal protections.
The judges’ attorneys argue the MSPB decision misconstrues a Supreme Court description of inferior officers, creating two tiers: some whose responsibilities are limited and for whom removal protections are legal, and others whose duties exceed that threshold and may be removed at will. Immigration practitioners need to watch this case closely because the outcome will affect whether the bench your clients appear before is composed of judges with job security—and thus a degree of independence from political pressure—or judges who can be removed without notice.
If the government prevails, it signals that the president has broad power to reshape the immigration courts by terminating judges whose rulings displease the administration. If the judges prevail, it reinforces decades of civil service law protecting federal adjudicators from arbitrary removal.
Way forward
-
Monitor the Federal Circuit docket (No. 26-1575, Jackler v. DOJ) for briefing schedules and oral argument dates. The en banc review will take longer than a typical three-judge panel.
-
Preserve arguments in your case about the independence and neutrality of the immigration judge hearing your client’s matter. If judges are removable at will, document any pressure or inconsistent rulings that might support a future motion to reopen or appeal based on judicial bias.
-
Watch for amicus briefs from congressional leaders, civil rights organizations, and federal employee unions. These will signal which parts of the constitutional argument are gaining traction and may preview the court’s thinking.
-
Expect a binding precedent that will govern how immigration judges can be hired, fired, and disciplined nationwide. This decision will likely be cited in every future Article II termination case.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is not a law firm and cannot advise you on how this ruling affects your specific case. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to discuss the implications for your client and your litigation strategy. Policy and court rulings can change without notice; verify all information against the primary source linked above and current court filings.