Page 32 - The Indian EYE 062025
P. 32
IMMIGRATION JUNE 20, 2025 | The Indian Eye 32
In the Walmart Case,
the Government
Cannot Have Its Cake
and Eat it too
BY CYRUS MEHTA & of immigration-related re- and is the Chief Judge within la Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Salzman, attorney for the
cordkeeping requirements the Office of the Chief Ad- Ct. 2183, 2192 (2020); Unit- government, stated:
KAITLYN BOX*
on the ground that the pro- ministrative Hearing Officer ed States v. Arthrex, Inc.,
ceedings were “being con- (OCAHO), can be removed 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1980 (2021).
n a previous blog, ex- ducted by an administrative from their position only for Walmart argued that ALJs “Here they are saying
cerpted here, we ana- do not within either of these all I-9 enforcement has
Ilyzed Walmart, Inc. v. law judge (“ALJ”) who is “good cause” as determined exceptions, “so the removal
unconstitutionally shielded by the Merits System Protec-
Jean King, which involved from the President’s super- tion Board (MSPB) and by scheme that protects them is to stop unless and until
a challenged by Walmart to vision. ALJs like Jean King, the president for “only for unconstitutional twice over”. Congress is able to act.
the administrative proceed- who was presiding over the inefficiency, neglect of duty, Chief Justice J. Randal Hall
ings against it for violations And it’s not just I-9 en-
proceedings against Walmart or malfeasance in office”. of the United States District
Court for the Southern Dis- forcement — that actu-
Walmart alleged trict of Georgia agreed with ally wildly understates
Walmart and granted its mo-
that this system vi- tion for summary judgement, the stakes of the poten-
olates the Consti- finding that “the multilevel tial implications of their
protection from removal
tution by insulating present for the OCAHO argument”, noting the
ALJs “from presi- ALJs is contrary to Article II, wide range of adminis-
and contrary to the executive
dential control by power of the President.” trative proceedings over
The federal government
two levels of remov- appealed this finding, and which ALJs preside.
al protection”. the US Court of Appeals for […]
the Eleventh Circuit heard
Walmart argued in the case on Friday, June 6.
that Article II of the Attorney Jeff Johnson, rep- “I could go on and on
Constitution, which resenting Walmart, argued and on…but the logic
commands the Presi- that the statutory defect in-
dent to “take Care that validates ALJs’ authority, of the district court’s
the Laws be faithfully stating: “I’m saying when opinion here is, all of it
executed”, requires him you bake in an unseverable
to have the power to removal restriction, that stops unless and until
m of remove executive offi- takes away their power to Congress amends the
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC cers. Only two types of act just as much.” The gov-
officers have been de- ernment, on the other hand, statute.”
termined to be exempt stated that it would not de-
from the President’s fend the constitutionality of The Supreme Court
removal power – princi- the removal provisions for has previously held that two
pal officers, who report ALJs, but, at the same time, types of officers have been
directly to the President, argued that ALJs should determined to be exempt
and inferior officers, still be left with the author- from the President’s remov-
who are appointed by ity to penalize Walmart and al power – principal officers,
the President but super- other employers in enforce- who report directly to the
2 6th Floor
vised by others. See Sei- ment proceedings. Joshua President, and inferior offi-
www.TheIndianEYE.com
