Client Alerts & Insights

Texas Decision Calls Into Question the Use of Administrative Law Judges

November 5, 2024

On October 30, 2024, a Texas federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) from using its in-house administrative law judges to oversee administrative proceedings against a government contractor for alleged discriminatory hiring practices. This case is one of at least three lawsuits challenging the DOL’s ability to use administrative law judges to resolve claims. Depending on how the other two cases are resolved, there could be a future circuit split on the permissibility of using in-house judges to preside over administrative proceedings, which would then lead to a Supreme Court decision to resolve the split.

The plaintiffs in all three lawsuits argue that administrative law judges are unlawfully insulated from removal by the President and that the issues being brought to them should be tried by a federal judge and jury, not an in-house judge. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the Texas federal judge agreed with ABM Industry Group, the plaintiff in the case, that the DOL’s judicial removal protections for its administrative law judges are unconstitutional but did not address ABM’s Seventh Amendment jury argument.

The other two cases, brought by Perdue Farms and Comcast, are pending in North Carolina and Virginia federal courts, respectively. Both courts sit in the Fourth Circuit and are not bound by the Fifth Circuit precedent relied upon by the Texas federal judge. If a circuit split arises, this issue would be ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Permitting administrative law judge proceedings in some circuits but not others is not feasible, so it is likely that the Supreme Court would step in.

This issue has far-reaching implications. A similar lawsuit was filed in a Texas federal court by Elon Musk’s SpaceX earlier this year challenging the constitutionality of administrative law judges and board members of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). Specifically, SpaceX argued that the NLRB’s administrative law judges and board members are unlawfully insulated from at-will removal by the President, and that NLRB proceedings violate its constitutional right to a jury trial. The federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking certain NLRB administrative proceedings against SpaceX, and the NLRB subsequently filed an appeal, which is currently pending in the Fifth Circuit.

We will continue to monitor and report on developments as they occur.

For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.

Eric Baisden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4676.

Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.

Hannah J. Kraus at hkraus@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6109.

Latest News

Client Alerts & Insights 2.18.26

Watch Your T&Cs! When Done Right, Terms and Conditions are Both Viable—And Valuable

The era of the paper/hard copy bill of lading and/or rate confirmation is fading fast. Hard copies and paper do live on in various shipment schematics; however, increasingly, and at a very rapid rate, transactions between shippers, carriers, brokers and forwarders are conducted by, and memorialized in, electronic form via email, interactive website access and response, and—more and more—AI mechanisms.

Client Alerts & Insights 2.18.26

The Long Tail of the Opioid Crisis: How AGs Continue to Pursue Manufacturers, Distributors, Pharmacies

The opioid crisis has been a perennial priority for state attorneys general, and was the marquis priority for the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) in both 2023 (under OH AG Dave Yost) and 2025 (under NH AG John Formella). Recently, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the conclusion of a multistate effort to secure the bankruptcy reorganization plan for Purdue Pharma (Purdue).