“Supreme Court Decision: Trump’s Authority to Remove Agency Members”
The Supreme Court made a ruling on Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump’s ability to dismiss members of independent federal agencies. The decision temporarily relieves Trump from reinstating Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Chief Justice John Roberts issued an order putting a hold on lower court decisions that mandated the reinstatement of these officials. The court will determine the next course of action after hearing arguments from the ousted officials’ attorneys.
While previous Supreme Court rulings have upheld protections for members of independent agencies against removal without cause, the current conservative majority has shifted stance in recent cases affecting other agencies. Wilcox, appointed by then-President Joe Biden in 2021, was set to serve until 2026 under federal law guidelines limiting removal to cases of neglect of duty or malfeasance. Harris, appointed by Biden in 2022, also has similar protections in her seven-year term at the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Trump’s attempts to dismiss both officials were met with legal challenges, resulting in victories at the district court level for Wilcox and Harris. An appeals court panel initially sided with Trump, but a subsequent ruling by the full bench reversed this decision in a 7-4 vote, prompting the case to move to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority of 6-3, has recently ruled certain protections for heads of independent agencies as unconstitutional. However, a precedent from 1935 upholding the structure of multi-member agencies remains in effect. Supporters of broad presidential power argue that independent agencies lack sufficient accountability to the democratically elected president under the Constitution’s separation of powers provision, and that the president should have the authority to dismiss agency heads at will.
In court filings, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower court rulings effectively allow Wilcox and Harris to exercise executive power against the president’s wishes. The potential implications of challenging the 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States include considerations about the president’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve, which traditionally operates independently of the White House.
