President Donald Trump is working to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal government's workforce, and it appears that no department, agency, or federal employee is immune from that effort.

That apparently includes administrative law judges within the executive branch, as the Justice Department led by Attorney General Pam Bondi just notified Congress that it disagrees with "unconstitutional" layers of protections from removal for them, according to Reuters.

In other words, Trump's DOJ wants to be able to fire executive branch administrative law judges at will, despite the multiple statutory restrictions against doing so that were previously imposed by Congress.

DOJ says congressional protections for executive branch judges have to go

Per Reuters, administrative law judges are unlike most federal judges in that they work within the executive branch and settle various administrative disputes within and between the various agencies and departments.

Congress passed multiple statutes in the past that substantially limit the executive branch's ability to fire those judges, but a top DOJ official just informed a senior member of the Senate that those rules have been deemed unconstitutional and will no longer be defended in court.

That notification was summarized in a brief statement on Thursday from AG Bondi's Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle, who said, "Today the Department of Justice determined that multiple layers of removal restrictions shielding administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional."

"Unelected and constitutionally unaccountable ALJs have exercised immense power for far too long," he added. "In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, the Department is restoring constitutional accountability so that Executive Branch officials answer to the President and to the people."

Supreme Court precedent cited to overturn conflicting statutes

Mizelle also shared on X a copy of a letter that was sent on Thursday by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that expanded upon the DOJ's determination about the laws protecting administrative law judges from being fired except for specific cause.

In that letter, Harris wrote, "I am writing to advise you that the Department of Justice has concluded that the multiple layers of removal restrictions for administrative law judges (ALJs) in 5 U.S.C. 1202(d) and 7521 (a) violate the Constitution, that the Department will no longer defend them in court, and that the Department has taken that position in ongoing litigation."

She pointed to the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, in which the court majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts "determined that granting 'multilayer protection from removal' to executive officers 'is contrary to Article II's vesting of the executive power in the President.'"

The top lawyer for the administration further noted that the Supreme Court concluded that "The President may not 'be restricted in his ability to remove a principal [executive] officer, who is in turn restricted in his ability to remove an inferior [executive] officer.'"

Protective statutes are too restrictive and violate the Constitution

However, as Acting SG Harris highlighted in the letter to Sen. Grassley, the two cited federal statutes dictate that federal agencies may only remove an administrative law judge "for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board," as well as that they "may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'"

"Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Free Enterprise Fund, the Department has determined that those statutory provisions violate Article II by restricting the President's ability to remove principal executive officers, who are in turn restricted in their ability to remove inferior executive officers," she added.

It does not appear that Grassley has publicly responded to the notification letter yet, and Reuters reported that the Association of Administrative Law Judges, the union that represents hundreds of those judges, suggested that they were "waiting for more information" before issuing a public stance on the Trump DOJ's move to make it easier to fire them.