How a Rebuilt MSPB Under James Woodruff II Could Change Due-Process for Veterans
- Matthew Feehan
- Oct 20
- 5 min read
After years of gridlock, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)—the independent federal agency that hears appeals from civil servants who believe they were unfairly disciplined, fired, denied reasonable accommodations, or retaliated against for whistleblowing—finally has a quorum again. For close to a decade, thousands of federal employee appeals have sat idle and have been teased by politicking because the Board lacked the three members to issue final decisions. But following the Senate’s October 7 confirmation of James Woodruff, the MSPB, acting with two members, can once again render final administrative rulings at the highest level of administrative review, restarting justice for countless military veterans and federal workers who have waited years for their final appeals.
Mr. Woodruff, in his prepared opening statement before the Committee, stated in part,
“I am honored that President Donald J. Trump nominated me to fill the position of member of the Merit Systems Protection Board.”
Woodruff joins the Board's Vice—and Acting—Chairman Henry J. Kerner after serving as a Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force, where he gained eight years of federal civil-service employment law experience, advising commanders worldwide and litigating cases before both the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He has also served at the 920th Rescue Wing, the Air Force Warfare Center, the 11th Wing, and the Pentagon.
Importance of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
The MSPB is the independent, quasi-judicial agency that serves as the highest administrative appeals body for federal employees challenging adverse personnel actions—such as removals, suspensions, demotions, or denials of accommodations. Picture less a beautiful marble courtroom and more a dim government office with fluorescent lights—Law & Order meets HR grievance desk.
Its appearance is no less as important as the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for example—as how the Administrative Judge (AJ)—a career civil-service attorney who functions like a trial judge—rules could mean years of backpay and reinstatement for an unjustly terminated federal employee—and many other forms of legal relief—from agencies like the Department of Defense (PH-1221-18-0073-W-1), Department of Homeland Security (DE-1221-18-0335-W-2), and even the Small Business Administration (DC-0752-20-0420-I-1).
The Executive Branch handling matters “in-house” (as opposed to sending cases to the Judiciary) has been par for the course throughout much of American administrative history, with agency adjudication long shielded by judicial deference. That tradition, however, took a serious hit when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in its 2024 decision Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court’s ruling effectively dismantled the long-standing doctrine of Chevron deference, which had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes—marking a historic shift in how much latitude the Executive Branch enjoys when “policing itself.”
When the Board Becomes the Victim of Politicalization
That extraordinary concentration of executive power—normally tempered by a bipartisan, three-member board—was tested again in early 2025. On February 10, 2025, President Donald J. Trump dismissed Democratic MSPB Member Cathy Harris, prompting immediate litigation over the limits of presidential removal authority. A federal judge ordered her reinstatement on February 18, but on March 28, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Harris v. Bessent that the president does have the power to remove executive officials. Just days later, on April 7, the same court ordered Harris’s reinstatement pending appeal—only for the U.S. Supreme Court on April 9, 2025, to block that reinstatement while the broader constitutional question continued. The result left the Merit Systems Protection Board once again without a quorum, barely a year after it had finally regained one in 2024—halting final decisions on thousands of employee appeals (many of whom are military veterans) until the Senate’s October 7 confirmation of James J. Woodruff II restored the Board to full strength.
In her dissent from the Supreme Court’s April 9 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:
On the latter side, the relevant interest is not the “wrongfully removed officer[s’],” but rather Congress’s and, more broadly, the public’s. What matters, in other words, is not that Wilcox and [MSPB Member Cathy] Harris would love to keep serving in their nifty jobs. What matters instead is that Congress provided for them to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies.
In other words, this episode is shaping up to be the civics battle of all civics battles—a twenty-first-century echo of Marbury v. Madison—testing the outer limits of separation of powers, presidential control, and the independence of quasi-judicial bodies designed to protect the merit-based civil service—all while veterans and career civil servants whose only “crime” was their desire to serve their country remain caught in the middle, their appeals unheard beyond the desks of regional Administrative Judges.
What the Future Holds for Civil Servants
On Tuesday, October 7, 2025, as the Senate confirmed James J. Woodruff II to restore the Merit Systems Protection Board’s quorum, Senate and House Democrats introduced the Fair Access to Swift and Timely Justice Act (S. 2977)—a bill that would allow federal employees to bring their cases directly to court if the MSPB fails to act within 120 days. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and co-sponsored by Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), the bill faces long odds of passage in the current Congress.
Still, its introduction sends an unmistakable signal. For decades, the Executive Branch has largely handled its own internal disputes, relying on administrative judges and agency panels to resolve personnel matters “in-house.” But the chaos that followed the 2025 removal of MSPB Member Cathy Harris and the months-long paralysis that ensued have renewed bipartisan concern about the limits of executive power and the need for functioning, independent oversight.
If enacted, the FAST Justice Act would create a private right of action, effectively giving wronged federal employees—and the veterans among them—the ability to take their case straight to federal court when the administrative machinery stalls. While such a measure could further burden an already overworked judiciary, it also sends a powerful message: if the Executive Branch cannot—or will not—hear the grievances of its own, the Judiciary will step in to ensure justice is not indefinitely delayed.
The bill is unlikely to advance far, but its symbolism is undeniable. It represents an institutional warning shot—a reminder that checks and balances still matter, that due process belongs to everyone who serves, and that even within the vast bureaucracy of government, the promise of fairness must remain louder than politics.
About the Author
Matthew Feehan, J.D. is a U.S. Army National Guard veteran and former infantry officer with more than a decade of combined military, legal, and federal contracting experience. A former Department of Justice Honors Law Clerk and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Law Clerk and Operations Officer, Feehan has served across nearly every corner of the federal system—as a contractor, civil servant, and soldier—working on matters that span regulatory policy, administrative law, and complex federal procurement. His firsthand experience navigating the same statutes and rulemaking processes that govern veterans’ benefits gives his writing a uniquely practical edge.
Today, Feehan serves as a Senior Policy Advisor with the Veterans Education Project (VEP), a Board Member and Sergeant-at-Arms of Combat Veterans of America (CVA), and an independent consultant specializing in ethics, compliance, and veterans’ policy. His work explores how law and regulation collide with the lived experience of those who serve—bridging the gap between policy intent and on-the-ground impact for veterans, families, and the public institutions charged with supporting them.
Comments