Senate Democrats are urging a federal appeals court to reverse a decision upholding the firings of two immigration judges at the Justice Department. The lawmakers warn that the previous ruling from the Merit Systems Protection Board could give the president much broader firing powers over many civil servants.
What changed
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) was joined by Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) in submitting an amicus brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Jackler and Jaroch v. Department of Justice. The Democrats’ new amicus brief follows a previous request in the same court case for a full-bench appeals court hearing.
Immigration judges Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch were fired on February 14, 2025, by the Justice Department as part of a larger pattern of federal worker terminations. The judges were terminated without notice or other federal civil service termination procedures. In the March 20 decision, the two current MSPB members, both Republicans, affirmed that the Trump administration does have the constitutional authority to fire immigration judges — and that MSPB does not have jurisdiction to intervene in those decisions.
The judges’ attorneys have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, who were both fired by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi in February 2025, said that MSPB’s decision mistakenly relied on “dictum,” a legal term for portions of a judge’s writing that is made in passing and not relevant to the actual decision, in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case invalidating removal protections of principal officers.
Why it matters
The senators argued that the MSPB ruling effectively usurps Congress’ authority to insulate inferior officers from political interference. “The Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision poses serious consequences for the constitutional systems of separation of powers and checks and balances, and it will affect thousands of federal workers, many of whom are constituents of amici,” they wrote.
For immigration practitioners, the stakes are acute. Immigration judges have civil service protections upon being hired, and therefore those employees should have the same protections if they are terminated — meaning they cannot be fired at-will or without due process. If the MSPB ruling stands and the Federal Circuit does not reverse, immigration judges would lose the procedural shield that has historically protected them from removal based on their case outcomes or political pressure from DOJ leadership.
More than 100 immigration judges have already been pushed out since February 2025. The DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review bases its argument on Article II of the Constitution, allowing the president to remove “inferior officers” — including immigration judges — without restriction. The administration has relied on that constitutional re-interpretation to justify a wide swath of firings targeting federal workers covered by civil service law.
This threatens the independence of the immigration bench. Without due process protections, immigration judges face pressure to modify case outcomes to align with executive policy priorities, undermining the adjudicatory integrity of removal proceedings.
Way forward
-
Track the Federal Circuit appeal. Monitor https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/ for briefing schedules and oral argument dates in Jackler and Jaroch v. Department of Justice. This case will shape whether immigration judges retain civil service appellate rights.
-
Document your clients’ judges. Note which judges preside over your cases, particularly if they are newer appointees vulnerable to at-will removal. This information may be relevant to ineffective assistance claims or appeals if MSPB’s reasoning spreads to other civil servants.
-
Prepare for unpredictability. If the Federal Circuit does not reverse, plan for the possibility that immigration judges may have less job security and may face retaliation or removal based on case decisions. This could affect case strategy and timeline expectations.
-
Support the appellate brief. If your organization represents immigrants or employs immigration practitioners, consider filing your own amicus brief with the Federal Circuit, or supporting organizations (like AILA or ILRC) that do.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to understand how the Jackler and Jaroch litigation may affect your specific situation. Immigration policy and law change frequently; verify this information against the primary source linked above and current agency guidance before relying on it in practice.