Nearly four dozen Democrats are calling for the reversal of a key Merit Systems Protection Board decision that they say could greatly expand presidential firing powers across the career federal workforce.

In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 46 House and Senate lawmakers warned that MSPB’s March decision upholding the firings of two federal immigration judges will ultimately erode civil service protections for “countless” federal employees.

If the board’s decision is upheld, it would “fundamentally alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches,” their brief states. Lawmakers urged the appeals court to reverse the board’s decision and reinstate the plaintiffs.

“The danger of a broad impact on swathes of the federal workforce is real — the dividing line on what constitutes an inferior officer is increasingly blurred,” they wrote in the brief, shared first with Federal News Network. “The potential consequence here is that the [Civil Service Reform Act] is functionally eliminated and federal employees will no longer have protections against arbitrary removal, reprisal or the assurance of due process.”

MSPB’s ruling comes in the case of Jackler v. DOJ, involving two immigration judges, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, who the Justice Department fired last year, citing authority under Article II of the Constitution to remove “inferior officers” at will. The federal appeals court is expected to hold an en banc hearing for the case later this fall.

Ahead of the hearing, Democrats said in their brief that the reasoning used to deem immigration judges “inferior officers” was so broad that “countless” other federal positions could be categorized the same way. They argued the rationale means virtually the entire federal workforce would be considered “inferior officers” and therefore not entitled to civil service protections, effectively making them at-will workers.

The lawmakers further contended that MSPB’s ruling runs contrary to Congress’ intent in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The law established civil service protections for the career federal workforce — including a right to advance notice, an opportunity to respond and the ability to appeal in instances of adverse actions.

“Congress acted squarely within its constitutional authority when creating the position of immigration judge and placing it under the protection of the Civil Service Reform Act. This is the will of Congress — that immigration judges are entitled to the protections … By removing Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch without those protections, the president acted against the will of Congress,” Democrats wrote.

The amicus brief was led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Reps. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), also co-chairs of the recently formed Federal Workforce Caucus. The three members were joined by another 43 lawmakers in signing the amicus brief, which was filed on their behalf by attorneys at Gilbert Employment Law.

Lawmakers pointed to other instances where Congress has acted to defend the federal workforce, such as passing protections for whistleblowers and safeguards against workplace discrimination.

“Though these cases have not squarely encountered the intersection between Article II removal authority and the CSRA, or its predecessor, the message is clear: Congress setting protections and guardrails for the federal workforce at-large has been a consistent practice since the founding,” they wrote.

DOJ did not respond to Federal News Network’s request for comment.

Several other organizations, including the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Justice Connection and Equal Employment Opportunity Leaders, have also filed amicus briefs in the Jackler case.

In one of the other filings, two former Office of Personnel Management leaders, Rob Shriver and Janice LaChance, warned that upholding MSPB’s decision would threaten the integrity and expertise of the career federal workforce.

From their positions leading OPM, the two former officials argued in their brief that civil service protections are meant to strengthen the federal workforce — and that removing those protections would weaken and politicize the civil service. The brief was filed on their behalf by Democracy Forward, where Shriver currently works as a managing director.

“Civil service protections are not about insulating poor performance or limiting accountability,” said Shriver, former OPM acting director under the Biden administration. “They are what make it possible to recruit talented public servants, retain critical expertise and ensure that career employees can provide honest, professional advice to leaders of any administration. Weakening those protections would make government less effective and leave every future president with a less capable federal workforce.”

If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email drew.friedman@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out 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.