The next major legal confrontation over the president’s authority to remove federal officials is taking shape in a dispute brought by two ousted immigration judges, a case that carries significant implications for the job security of hundreds of thousands of government employees. The outcome could redefine the boundaries of civil servICE protections that have long shielded career staff from political dismissal.
Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, both former immigration judges, are pressing their challenge after being dismissed in February 2025. Their case is now headed for a full hearing before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals this autumn, following that court’s June decision to review the matter en banc. That move signals the judges themselves view the legal questions at stake as particularly weighty. The pair’s appeal comes on the heels of a Merit Systems Protection Board ruling that sided with the Justice Department.
In its March opinion, the board concluded that “no entity, including Congress or the Board, may place restrictions” on the president’s removal power, adding that “for doing so would infringe upon the president’s ability to faithfully execute the laws.” The department had pressed the argument that Article II of the Constitution overrides the removal safeguards found in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 for “inferior officers,” and the board adopted that reasoning.
Nathaniel Zelinsky, counsel for the two former judges, warned that the government’s stance carries enormous reach. “The government’s argument in Jackler is potentially so sweeping it would mean the president could fire every single civil servant at will,” he said. Should the administration prevail, he added, “it would likely mean that every single one of the millions of federal workers throughout the federal government would not be protected from arbitrary abuse, discrimination and retaliation.”
The timing is notable given a recent Supreme Court ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, which held that Congress cannot “saddle” the president with officials “with whom he cannot work.” That case, centered on the removal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, also stated that “subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him.”
Observers of the court see potential ripple effects in that language. Joel Alicea, a law professor at Catholic University, noted that the phrasing appears broad. “That language does not seem to limit itself to principal officers,” he said, pointing to the chief justice’s assertion that “the president may remove his subordinates at will.”
Nicholas Bednar, a University of Minnesota law professor who focuses on the civil service, framed the dispute in stark terms. “The question of whether we can have a civil service staffed by individuals who are selected and retained based on their expertise, qualifications and employment performance, rather than the political ideology of the president is the entire foundation of our modern system of administrative governance,” he said.
President Trump, since beginning his second term, has moved aggressively to overhaul the federal workforce, including the dismissal of more than 25,000 probationary employees and the rollout of plans for large-scale reductions. In numerous other instances, the president has cited Article II to bypass standard civil service procedures when removing workers, framing those actions as part of his executive authority.
The Federal Circuit’s willingness to take the case en banc underscores how high the stakes are perceived to be. “This is the case that is going to go to the Supreme Court to test this issue,” Bednar said.
The Justice Department’s full position in this litigation is not outlined in the available account, and no additional comment from the former judges’ legal team beyond their filings has been reported.