Government Urges SCOTUS to Declare ALJ Process Unconstitutional
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.08.17
On November 29, 2017, the United States filed a brief in support of certiorari in Raymond J. Lucia Cos., Inc. v. SEC, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to use the case to hold that the existing hiring process for federal administrative law judges (ALJs) is unconstitutional. To date, federal courts of appeals have split on the question: the D.C. Circuit ruled that ALJs are mere “employees” of the federal government and are properly hired through a competitive process overseen by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); the Tenth and Fifth Circuits, on the other hand, ruled that ALJs are “inferior officers” of the United State and must therefore be appointed as dictated by the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as previously discussed here and here. The answer to the question could have significant consequences for thousands of ALJs serving in dozens of federal agencies who are routinely charged with overseeing discovery in agency proceedings, issuing subpoenas, making findings of fact, and deciding cases. The Supreme Court should decide whether to accept the case for argument early next year.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
