Two ex-federal immigration judges contesting their 2025 dismissals have received an uncommon full-court review in their lawsuit, which claims their firings were illegal.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved a request for an initial en banc hearing in Jackler v. DOJ, a case concerning two immigration judges terminated by the Department of Justice last year, citing Article II of the Constitution as justification.
Washington Litigation Group is representing the dismissed immigration judges Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch. The appellants contend their dismissals happened without justification or due process, directly breaching the Civil Service Reform Act, which guarantees career federal employees “pre-termination procedures.”
The case’s result could shape presidential authority to dismiss career federal employees on a broader scale.
“The Federal Circuit’s choice to hear this case en banc demonstrates how significant this appeal is,” said Nathaniel Zelinsky, senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group, on Wednesday. “The government has claimed a constitutional right to strip away the laws shielding our nation’s public servants from mistreatment and discrimination. That is as legally incorrect as it is profoundly unfair. We anticipate presenting this case before the entire appeals court.”
“En banc,” or full bench, hearings in appellate courts are seldom approved; they are typically set aside for extraordinary cases. Most of the time, three-judge panels handle individual appeals. The previous en banc hearing conducted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was last summer in a case concerning President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs.
For Jackler v. DOJ, “a poll was requested and taken, and the court concluded that the petition for review merits en banc consideration,” the court stated in its Wednesday order.
The order provides no timeline for oral arguments, but Washington Litigation Group indicated the hearing would probably occur this fall.
The forthcoming appeals court hearing follows the Merit Systems Protection Board’s March decision upholding the dismissals of Jackler and Jaroch, overturning an MSPB administrative judge’s preliminary ruling from last August. The board maintained that their terminations were permitted under Article II of the Constitution, which grants the president authority to dismiss “inferior officers.” Traditionally, that constitutional authority has been limited to personnel matters involving political appointees.
The March 20 ruling stated that DOJ immigration judges, who are career federal employees, should be classified as “inferior officers,” and are therefore at-will and not eligible for civil service adverse action procedures. The two current MSPB members, both Republicans, also declared more broadly that the board lacks jurisdiction to interfere in agency dismissal decisions that reference constitutional authority.
In September 2025, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel released its own opinion on the matter, maintaining that the terminations were constitutionally allowable. DOJ subsequently stated it was “confident” that MSPB’s ruling would endure legal examination.
During his confirmation hearing this week, James Woodruff, a Republican MSPB member and Trump’s selection to serve as the board’s chairman, informed lawmakers that MSPB’s jurisdiction is fairly limited.
“What we examine when we’re evaluating these cases and having them presented to us is what did Congress provide us in terms of authority? And within that limited jurisdiction, whether or not we possess the authority to act — that’s truly how narrowly we define it,” Woodruff said.
Woodruff was among 11 nominees in a packed confirmation hearing on Wednesday with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. HSGAC Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.), while questioning Woodruff, expressed concerns about MSPB’s ruling in Jackler v. DOJ.
“I’m concerned about the procedural decision in March of 2026 where the board actually determined they can decide what law is constitutional or not,” Peters said.
“Regarding that case, it’s ongoing pending litigation with the Federal Circuit, and therefore I can’t really address that,” Woodruff responded.
In April, a group of Senate Democrats submitted an amicus brief in Jackler v. DOJ, advocating for an en banc appeals court hearing. The lawmakers stated MSPB’s ruling, if sustained, could significantly broaden presidential authority to dismiss federal employees at-will and create “serious consequences” for civil service protections.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who spearheaded the amicus brief, voiced support for the order this week granting an en banc review.
“The Merit Systems Protection Board’s ruling which permitted the attorney general to dismiss immigration judges at will is not only incorrect on its merits, but it also establishes a dangerous precedent that could endanger employees throughout the federal workforce,” Van Hollen said Wednesday. “Our immigration judges must have complete protection under the law and the removals of Jackler and Jaroch are in obvious violation of the Civil Service Reform Act. I will keep advocating their case and fighting to maintain essential safeguards for our civil servants across the federal government.”
If you wish to reach this reporter about recent developments in the federal government, please email drew.friedman@federalnewsnetwork.com or contact them 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.
