Appeals Court Overrules Trump on Board Member Firings/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal appeals court has reinstated two board members fired by Donald Trump, challenging the extent of presidential power over independent agencies. The 7-4 ruling revives long-standing legal debate over the 90-year-old precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor. Legal experts expect the case to escalate to the Supreme Court amid Trump’s push to reshape federal oversight bodies.
Court Overturns Trump Firings: Quick Looks
- Appeals court rules Trump unlawfully fired two independent board members.
- Decision invokes 1935 Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor.
- Reinstated board members were appointed by former President Joe Biden.
- Cathy Harris served on the Merit Systems Protection Board.
- Gwynne Wilcox served on the National Labor Relations Board.
- Trump’s legal team argues broad presidential authority under Constitution.
- Legal theorists see potential Supreme Court review of presidential powers.
- The case could reshape how independent federal agencies function.
Appeals Court Overrules Trump on Board Member Firings
Deep Look
Appeals Court Reverses Trump’s Removal of Labor Board Members, Setting Up Supreme Court Battle
In a landmark decision with sweeping implications for presidential power, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that two board members fired by former President Donald Trump must be reinstated to their positions. The 7-4 ruling, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is expected to set the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court showdown over executive authority and the independence of federal agencies.
The case revolves around Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, both appointed by former President Joe Biden to serve on independent labor-related agencies. Harris sat on the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which reviews employment disputes involving federal workers. Wilcox served on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an agency tasked with adjudicating unfair labor practices.
Both women were dismissed by Trump as part of his broader effort to reshape or reduce the size of federal oversight bodies. His administration has argued that the president has the constitutional authority to remove board members at will — even those serving on congressionally established, independent bodies.
But in its majority opinion, the appeals court leaned heavily on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that has long served as a key precedent in limiting the president’s power to dismiss members of independent agencies. That decision held that the president cannot remove board members of certain independent agencies without cause — such as malfeasance, neglect of duty, or incapacity.
Although long upheld, Humphrey’s Executor has come under increasing criticism by conservative legal scholars, who argue that it improperly restrains the executive branch and conflicts with Article II of the Constitution. With the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court, legal experts say there is now a real possibility the Court could revisit or overturn that precedent in a future appeal.
The latest ruling reverses a prior decision by a three-judge panel of the same court that had sided with Trump. Now, Harris and Wilcox are cleared to return to their respective positions — for the time being.
The ruling is especially consequential in Wilcox’s case. Her removal left the five-member NLRB without a quorum, effectively paralyzing its ability to carry out its duties. Wilcox, confirmed by the Senate for a second term in 2023, made history as the first Black woman to serve on the board since its creation in 1935.
In arguments before the court, attorneys for the government contended that reinstating Wilcox and Harris “undermines the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution.” They also claimed Harris, as a member of the MSPB, was subject to at-will dismissal.
Wilcox’s legal team strongly refuted these arguments, asserting that Trump’s actions violated due process protections. “There was no notice, no hearing, and no evidence of neglect or wrongdoing,” they said. Their brief stated that the administration’s only path to a legal win is for the Supreme Court to “adopt a more expansive view of presidential power.”
The stakes are high. The Merit Systems Protection Board plays a pivotal role in ensuring protections for federal employees, and its decisions directly affect the structure and stability of the U.S. civil service. Trump’s stated goal of significantly reducing the federal workforce makes the MSPB a potential target in future efforts to accelerate removals and downsizing.
The NLRB, meanwhile, handles hundreds of labor dispute cases each year. It is responsible for enforcing workers’ rights and ensuring fair labor practices — especially in union-related conflicts. Wilcox’s return could have major implications for how those cases proceed in the months ahead.
While the appeals court decision restores balance to both boards temporarily, the looming possibility of Supreme Court review could upend decades of precedent. If the justices choose to hear the case and side with Trump’s interpretation of presidential authority, it could dramatically alter how presidents interact with independent federal agencies.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.