Can Federal Employees Still Appeal a Firing in 2026?

Last Updated: June 7, 2026 Reading Time: 9 min

In about 30 days, three separate legal developments narrowed the path a fired federal employee can take to appeal. The Supreme Court's Margolin ruling (May 26), the Merit Systems Protection Board's "inferior officer" decision in Jackler v. DOJ (now in front of the Federal Circuit, opening brief filed June 1), and the June 3 Schedule Policy/Career executive order all push in the same direction. None of them ends MSPB appeals for the typical employee, but together they're the most significant pressure on federal appeal rights since the Civil Service Reform Act passed in 1978. Here's exactly what each one does.

Key Takeaways

• Three developments, one direction. Margolin, Jackler, and the Schedule Policy/Career order each narrow appeal access through a different mechanism.
• Jackler is the new one to watch. The MSPB said it has no jurisdiction over employees it calls "inferior officers." It's on appeal at the Federal Circuit, with no decision yet.
• Most employees are not directly affected today. The theory targets adjudicative and policymaking roles, and the Board said agencies must actually prove the claim.
• Senior career employees face the most exposure (GS-15, SES, ALJs), because the June 3 order and the Jackler theory both reach them.
• The 30-day MSPB appeal deadline is jurisdictional. Miss it and you lose the appeal, full stop.

What the MSPB Decided in Jackler

Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch were assistant chief immigration judges at DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review, career employees and military veterans, not political appointees. Both were fired on February 14, 2025 without the notice the Civil Service Reform Act normally requires. An MSPB administrative judge reversed the removals. DOJ and OPM appealed to the full Board.

On March 20, 2026, the Board (a 2-0 decision by its two Republican members; the Democratic member, Cathy Harris, had been removed in 2025 and has her own appeal pending) reached a striking conclusion. Applying the constitutional removal framework from cases like Seila Law v. CFPB, it found that immigration judges exercise significant adjudicative authority and policy influence, which makes them "inferior officers" the President can remove at will. Because their civil service protections amount to an unconstitutional restriction on that removal power, the Board said it had no jurisdiction to hear their appeals and dismissed them.

In the Board's own words: "If we find that a particular employee is subject to at-will Article II removal, we must dismiss their appeal for lack of jurisdiction."

This is the first time the MSPB itself has used the "inferior officer" doctrine to throw out appeals from career employees rather than political appointees. That's why it matters beyond two immigration judges.

One limiting principle worth holding onto: the Board also said an agency "cannot deprive the board of jurisdiction merely by invoking Article II authority." Agencies have to substantiate the claim. Critics argue the test the Board used (significant adjudicative authority plus policy influence) is broad enough to sweep in many positions, but as written, it is not an automatic loss of rights.

The Case Is Not Decided

The Washington Litigation Group appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (No. 26-1575) and filed its opening brief on June 1, 2026, the immediate news hook. Their argument: the Board's decision contradicts more than a century of precedent and leans on what they call a "half-sentence of dictum" from Seila Law. Amicus briefs supporting the employees came from the MSPB Professional Association (the Board's own staff association), DOJ career-attorney group Justice Connection, and a group of U.S. Senators.

To be clear about status: as of June 7, 2026, the government's response is pending, no oral argument is scheduled, and the Federal Circuit has not affirmed, reversed, or vacated anything. The case is briefing. Reporting that more than 100 similar MSPB cases are "on hold" pending the outcome comes from the plaintiffs' counsel, so treat it as advocacy framing rather than an official Board statistic.

Three Threats, Side by Side

Here's the part worth saving. These are three different legal mechanisms, and conflating them is the most common mistake in the coverage.

Development	Date	Mechanism	Who it reaches	Appeal-rights effect	Status
Margolin v. NAIJ (SCOTUS)	May 26, 2026	Must exhaust the MSPB/CSRA before district court	All CSRA-covered employees	Delays, doesn't eliminate; MSPB path required first	Final
Jackler v. DOJ (MSPB → Fed. Cir.)	Mar 20, 2026; briefing now	Article II "inferior officer"; Board says no jurisdiction	Adjudicative / policymaking career roles	Board dismissed without a merits review	Fed. Cir. No. 26-1575, no decision
Schedule Policy/Career EO	June 3, 2026	Excepted-service reclassification removes Chapter 75	~8,000 GS-15+ senior positions	No MSPB appeal; written notice to separate	Sued (NTEU/AFGE/AFSCME); injunctions stayed

The trap is in the overlap. Margolin tells you to go to the MSPB. Jackler lets the MSPB turn certain employees away at the door. And the June 3 order skips the constitutional question entirely for the senior positions it reclassified.

Who Could Be Affected (and Who Isn't)

This is where care matters, because the alarming version of this story overstates it.

Not directly affected today: the roughly 1.5 million standard GS employees (GS-5 through GS-14) in normal program or administrative roles. They don't fit the "significant adjudicative or policymaking authority" test, and this ruling doesn't change their appeal rights right now.

Potentially exposed if Jackler is affirmed: career employees in adjudicative or high-authority roles. Legal advocacy groups and Senate letters have flagged the following as theoretically at risk, though the MSPB opinion itself named only immigration judges, and any agency making the claim would have to substantiate it:

Role	Why it's flagged	Today's protection
Administrative law judges	Significant adjudicative authority	5 U.S.C. § 7521
Senior Executive Service	Policymaking authority by definition	OPM/MSPB process
Career agency general counsels	Legal calls with policy weight	CSRA
FDA reviewers, IRS senior examiners, EPA scientists	Consequential determinations	CSRA

Read that table as "watch this," not "you've lost your rights." The combination that actually bites is being a senior career employee, because the June 3 order reaches you by statute and the Jackler theory could reach you by constitution.

What To Do Now

You can't control the litigation, but you can protect your position.

1. Document your situation. Your grade, your position description, and any pending or threatened adverse action. If you're GS-15, SES, or in an adjudicative role, get a read from a federal employment attorney on whether your position could be argued as an "inferior officer."
2. Mind the 30-day clock. If you receive a covered adverse action, you have 30 days to file an MSPB appeal, and that deadline is treated as jurisdictional. Missing it forfeits the appeal regardless of the merits.
3. Know the financial picture. The Jackler timeline likely runs into 2027. If you're deciding whether to fight a removal or accept a separation, model what you'd be walking away from first.

Run the Numbers Before You Decide

If you're weighing a fight against a negotiated exit, or thinking about retiring rather than waiting out years of litigation, get the math in front of you. Use our free Severance Pay Calculator to see what a separation package is worth, and if you're near your MRA, the FERS Retirement Calculator to compare retiring now against waiting.

Estimate your severance →

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the MSPB decide in Jackler v. DOJ, and why does it matter?

In March 2026, the MSPB ruled in a precedential decision that immigration judges, who are career employees and not political appointees, are "inferior officers" under Article II, so the President can remove them at will and the Board has no jurisdiction to review the firing. It matters because the test the Board used could be argued for other career employees with adjudicative or policymaking roles. The Federal Circuit is now reviewing whether that test is correct; no decision had issued as of June 2026.

Does this affect my right to appeal to the MSPB if I'm fired?

For most federal employees, the roughly 1.5 million standard GS career employees in program or administrative roles, this specific ruling does not change your appeal rights today. The "inferior officer" theory requires an agency to show you exercise significant adjudicative or policymaking authority, and the Board's own decision said agencies cannot strip its jurisdiction merely by invoking Article II. But if you're a GS-15, in the SES, an administrative law judge, or in an adjudicative role, the case is directly relevant to you.

How is Jackler different from the Supreme Court's Margolin ruling?

Margolin (SCOTUS, May 2026) closed a shortcut employees used to skip the MSPB and go straight to district court. It says you must go through the MSPB first. Jackler says the MSPB itself may not be available for some employees because the Board says it lacks jurisdiction over them. Together they can create a trap: Margolin channels you to the MSPB, and Jackler lets the MSPB dismiss without reaching the merits, sending you to the Federal Circuit on a threshold question that can take years.

Is Schedule Policy/Career the same issue?

No. Schedule Policy/Career strips MSPB appeal rights through a statutory mechanism: moving a position into the excepted service removes the Chapter 75 adverse-action protections, no constitutional theory required. The June 3, 2026 order used this to reclassify about 8,000 senior positions. The Jackler "inferior officer" theory is a separate, constitutional route. They're two different paths to the same loss of appeal rights, and they overlap most for senior career employees.

What should I do now if I'm worried about my appeal rights?

Three things. Document your grade, position description, and any pending action. If you're GS-15, SES, or in an adjudicative role, ask a federal employment attorney whether your position could be argued as an "inferior officer." And watch the clock: a covered MSPB appeal must be filed within 30 days, which is treated as jurisdictional. If you're weighing whether to fight a removal or take a separation while the litigation plays out, model the financial side first.

Related Resources

• Is Your Job on the 8,000-Person Schedule Policy/Career List?: The June 3 order that strips appeal rights by statute
• Margolin v. NAIJ Explained: The SCOTUS ruling that routes you through the MSPB first
• Severance Pay Calculator: What a separation package is worth
• FERS Retirement Calculator: Compare retiring now vs. waiting out litigation

---

This article is general information, not legal advice. If you're facing an adverse action, the 30-day MSPB clock is short; consult a federal employment attorney. The Jackler Federal Circuit case (No. 26-1575) was in briefing with no decision at publication. Sources: MSPB opinion CF-0752-26-0069-I-1, Lawfare, GovExec, Federal News Network, Washington Litigation Group, Seila Law v. CFPB. The "100+ cases on hold" figure is from plaintiffs' counsel.