The Trump administration told Congress on Thursday that while a regulation could protect such officials from no misconduct, President Trump still believes that President Trump has constitutional powers to fire an executive law judge at will.
The move is the latest step in the administration’s ongoing development of the basic structure of the federal government, and Congress’s power to isolate sensitive status of executive officials of all types, exempting from political intervention from White House. The Trump administration revealed its approach in a letter from Acting Attorney General Sarah M. Harris.
The Administrative Law Judge presides over the administrative hearings of administrative departments and agencies. They are executive officers, not members of the judiciary’s life attitude, but they still play the role of judges, including managing oaths, testifying, ruling on issues of evidence, and making factual and legal determinations.
Examples of such officials include the Social Security Bureau judges who deal with disability and retirement benefits disputes; the National Labor and Industrial Relations judges resolved unfair labor practice cases; and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission judges who heard about electricity utilities and regional grids Disputes on matters such as
To save officials from political intervention, Congress has issued a statute that says disciplinary action, including shooting, can be taken against such judges “only for good cause and determined good cause of good system protection committees, which is In recorded records, after the opportunity to hear the board of directors, .”
Ms. Harris' letter to Congress also attracted wider attention, that the Justice Department had stated that in the case filed in the Court of Appeals case on February 11, the Justice Department no longer defended the constitutionality of the Administrative Law judges.
In this case, a paint company is challenging the fine imposed by the Department of Transportation Administrative Law Judge, violating a federal rule that requires the packaging of paint cans to prevent them from leaking when transported on the plane. The company also believes that, among other things, the judge's position is unconstitutional because the president cannot remove such a judge at will.
Ms. Harris agrees that the 2010 Supreme Court ruling rejected a statute in which Congress established a government agency to give two layers of insulation in the president’s control. The board members of the institution can only be removed for reasons, and in turn, they are supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission and their members can only be removed for the cause.
Ms. Harris said that in the same way, administrative law judges are not only protected by regulations that say they can only be removed for reasons, but Congress decides whether there is a reason to terminate, rather than in the hands of the President, Among those.
The board is a key part of the civil service protection measures established by Congress or the office for malfeasance. ”
It is worth noting that Mr. Trump has violated the latter’s regulations by publicly firing Chairman Cathy Harris, who prompted her to file a lawsuit. A federal judge temporarily restored her Tuesday, despite appeals from the Trump administration.
Sarah M.
The Trump administration has embraced an ideology called the unified implementation theory. The theory says that the Constitution should be reinterpreted to prohibit Congress from imposing any restrictions on the President's ability to fully control the executive branch, including arbitrary dismissal of subordinates.
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has violated many regulations in which Congress sets when various officials can be fired, including the inspector general, independent agencies and members of civil servants.
Many of the firings have led to lawsuits, setting up test cases to see if the Supreme Court will beat these regulations and expand the powers of Mr. Trump and future presidents.
Chad Mizelle, chief of staff of Attorney General Pam Bondi, called the government challenged regulations that allowed government judges to challenge administrative judges from the White House's political intervention.
“The unelected and constitutionally irresponsible ALJ exercises immense powers too long,” he said. “According to the Supreme Court's precedent, the ministry is restoring constitutional responsibility so that executive officials can answer the president and the people.”
