Supreme Court backs President Trump’s authority to fire federal agency board members, shifting the balance of power in Washington toward the executive branch.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court allowed Trump to remove board members from independent federal agencies without cause while legal challenges continue
- The decision impacts two Biden appointees: Gwynne Wilcox of the NLRB and Cathy Harris of the MSPB
- Conservative justices signaled they believe the Constitution grants presidents authority to fire such officials at will
- Three liberal justices dissented, warning the ruling threatens decades of independent agency governance
- The Federal Reserve may remain exempt from this expanded presidential authority
Supreme Court Expands Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump’s bid to remove board members from independent federal agencies, delivering a significant victory for presidential authority. The conservative-majority court declined to reinstate two Biden appointees – Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board – whom Trump had fired after taking office.
This decision effectively extends an earlier administrative stay issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, allowing the president to dismiss these officials while legal challenges proceed through lower courts.
The unsigned order from the court’s conservative majority suggested that the Constitution likely permits presidents to fire such officials “without cause,” challenging decades of precedent regarding independent agency governance.
The ruling maintains that “the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”
Liberal Justices Issue Strong Dissent
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by fellow liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a forceful dissent, describing the court’s action as “nothing short of extraordinary.” The dissenting justices emphasized that presidential removals of independent agency officials without legitimate cause have not occurred since the 1950s, if not earlier. Their opposition highlights concerns about dismantling a governance structure that has been in place for nearly a century.
“Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent.
Kagan further warned that the decision threatens a system that “undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control.” The firings have left both agencies without enough board members to make final decisions, as President Trump has not yet appointed replacements for the dismissed officials.
Constitutional Questions and Potential Exceptions
At the heart of this dispute is a challenge to the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. This precedent has long been contested by conservative legal theorists who advocate for a more expansive view of presidential power under Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s current conservative majority appears sympathetic to revisiting and potentially narrowing this longstanding limitation on executive authority.
“That way lies chaos,” warned lawyer Neal Katyal, representing the dismissed board members, suggesting that upholding the firings could lead to presidential removal of officials from all independent agencies.
Notably, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, defending President Trump’s actions, indicated that firing Federal Reserve governors would be a separate issue not addressed in this case. This distinction suggests that even if the court ultimately grants presidents broader removal powers, some independent agencies with particularly sensitive responsibilities may remain protected. The case will continue in lower courts, but the Supreme Court’s preliminary ruling signals a potential major shift in the balance of power between the presidency and independent regulatory agencies.