U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart F— Labor-Management and Employee Relations › Chapter CHAPTER 75— ADVERSE ACTIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

5 U.S.C. § 7521

Actions against administrative law judges

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) An action may be taken against an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title by the agency in which the administrative law judge is employed only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.(b) The actions covered by this section are—(1) a removal;(2) a suspension;(3) a reduction in grade;(4) a reduction in pay; and(5) a furlough of 30 days or less;but do not include—(A) a suspension or removal under section 7532 of this title;(B) a reduction-in-force action under section 3502 of this title; or(C) any action initiated under section 1215 of this title.(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, § 204(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1137; amended Pub. L. 101–12, § 9(a)(2), Apr. 10, 1989, 103 Stat. 35.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 7521, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 528; Pub. L. 95–251, § 2(a)(1), Mar. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 183, related to removal of an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–454, § 204(a).

Amendments

1989—Subsec. (b)(C). Pub. L. 101–12 substituted “1215” for “1206”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–12 effective 90 days following Apr. 10, 1989, see section 11 of Pub. L. 101–12, set out as a note under section 1201 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 138 cases (64 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Bandimere v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bandimere v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “204 (a), and are removable only for good cause, 5 U.S.C. § 7521 . Their pay is detailed in 5 U.”
Joe Fleming v. AGRI, 987 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2021). · cites it 6× “If we were to reach the merits of that issue, the government submits that we should adopt a narrowing construction of one of the applicable layers of removal protections, see 5 U.S.C. § 7521 , to avoid serious constitutional concerns.”
Long v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 526 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 14× “II Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7521 , the Agency was permitted to remove or suspend Long, an ALJ, "only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board.”
Pere Jarboe v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2023 MSPB 22 (MSPB 2023). · cites it 6× “Limon, Member OPINION AND ORDER ¶1 The respondent has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which found good cause for his removal under 5 U.S.C. § 7521 . For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the respondent’s petition and AFFIRM the initial decision as…”
Tunik v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 407 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 17× “170 (1985), which had recognized an action for “constructive” removal before the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7521 , even though the claimant had not been actually separated from his or her position.”
Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. 237 (2018). “See 5 U. S. C. §7521 . And now it should be clear why the application of Free Enterprise Fund to administrative law judges is im- portant.”
Harry Calcutt III v. FDIC, 37 F.4th 293 (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “5 U.S.C. § 7521 (a). Members of the MSPB, in turn, may be removed by the President “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
PHH Corp. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “ALJs can be removed for “good cause,” 5 U.S.C. § 7521 , which has been interpreted to require that an ALJ “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in [] independence, integrity, and impartiality .”
K & R Contractors, LLC v. Michael Keene, 86 F.4th 135 (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 5× “The Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs at DOL filed a brief on behalf of the Government arguing that, to save the ALJ removal scheme from constitutional infirmity, we must impose a novel narrowing construction on one of the applicable layers of protection,…”
Larry J. Butler v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 331 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “5 U.S.C. § 7521 (2000). OPM has promulgated regulations to implement this statute.”
Axon Enter., Inc. v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175 (2023). “” 5 U. S. C. §§ 7521 (a), 1202(d). An ALJ assigned to hear an SEC or FTC enforce- ment action has authority, much like a regular trial judge, to resolve motions, hold a hearing, and then issue a decision.”
Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 537 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Although the Board and the United States as intervenor did not point to them as a precedent, administrative law judges in the independent agencies are removable only for cause at the initiation of the agency that employs them and with approval of the Merit Systems Protection…”
Show all 138 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.