😁 BREAKING: Pam Bondi just declared that restrictions shielding administrative law judges from removal are unconstitutional and will no longer defend them in court.
Pam Bondi, as U.S. Attorney General, has indeed taken a stance against the removal restrictions for administrative law judges (ALJs). On February 20, 2025, the U.S. Justice Department, under her leadership, announced that it considers the multiple layers of protection shielding ALJs from presidential removal to be unconstitutional. This shift in policy means the DOJ will no longer defend these restrictions in court, aligning with a broader effort by the Trump administration to reduce the power of federal regulatory agencies. This was reported by Reuters and corroborated by posts on X reflecting current sentiment.
This move builds on prior legal groundwork. You mentioned last year’s Supreme Court ruling, which likely refers to the June 27, 2024, decision in SEC v. Cochran. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of in-house administrative law judges to adjudicate enforcement actions violated the Constitution, specifically the Appointments Clause and the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. This decision weakened the legal foundation for ALJs operating independently within agencies, supporting the argument that such judges should be subject to greater executive control.
The implication here is that, with the DOJ’s new position, President Trump could potentially remove ALJs more easily, targeting those perceived as obstructing his agenda—though the claim of them "secretly perverting the Constitution" is an opinion not directly substantiated by legal documents. The "deep-state judges" losing "all their legal support" is also a rhetorical flourish rather than a precise legal outcome, but it reflects a narrative of dismantling bureaucratic resistance, consistent with sentiments expressed in various X posts and conservative commentary.
This development doesn’t immediately strip all ALJs of their roles—it opens the door to legal challenges and executive actions that could reshape how these judges function across agencies like the Social Security Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, and others. However, any mass removal would still face practical and legal hurdles, including court battles and the need to redefine adjudication processes. The broader impact remains uncertain and will likely unfold through future litigation and policy changes.
