DOJ in-house judges held unconstitutional as Walmart, SpaceX win INA enforcement pause

Two federal district courts have held the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) administrative law courts—which enforce the laws prohibiting discrimination against work-authorized immigrants—are unconstitutional. In March 2024, a federal district court in the Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment (dismissal without a trial) in favor of Walmart, saying the courts were unconstitutional because the administrative law judges (ALJs) are shielded from presidential supervision, violating Article III. A federal district court in Texas suspended ALJ proceedings against SpaceX as unconstitutional under the Appointment Clause because the ALJs issue decisions without attorney general oversight.

Background

The administrative law courts at issue are part of the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review known as the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer and enforce the federal immigration law barring workplace discrimination based on citizenship status, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and Employee Rights Section—which protects the employment rights of refugees, those granted asylum, green card holders, and other foreign-born U.S. residents—has used the threat of litigation before these same ALJs to force employers to settle discrimination claims.

Facts