Appeals court reinstates fired board members, setting stage for major Supreme Court battle over presidential power
Shreedhar Rathi | Apr 08, 2025, 00:07 IST
( Image credit : AP, TOIGLOBAL )
A federal appeals court reinstated two independent agency board members fired by President Trump, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court battle over presidential authority. The court's decision favored Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, finding their dismissals violated precedent protecting independent agency members.
In a major legal setback for President Donald Trump, a federal appeals court on Monday reinstated two independent agency board members he had fired, setting up what many legal analysts predict will be a high-stakes Supreme Court showdown over the limits of presidential authority.
In a 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, two labor agency officials dismissed by Trump. The court found their removals violated longstanding precedent protecting independent agency members from politically motivated firings without cause.
The majority opinion, delivered unsigned, leaned heavily on Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that limits a president’s ability to remove members of independent agencies unless there is evidence of misconduct or neglect. That ruling has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, especially from conservative jurists who argue it unduly restricts the president’s executive power.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it,” the court’s majority wrote. All seven judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents. The four dissenters, including three appointed by Trump, pushed for a broader view of presidential authority.
The D.C. Circuit’s decision reverses a prior ruling by a three-judge panel from the same court, which had sided with the Trump administration. Monday’s ruling isn’t a final verdict on the constitutional issues at stake, but it allows Harris and Wilcox to temporarily resume their roles while the case is likely appealed to the Supreme Court.
A separate vote — even closer at 6-5 — declined to stay the ruling for one week to give the administration more time to file an emergency appeal. That signals the urgency and significance with which both sides view the case.
Legal experts anticipate the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could use the dispute to revisit or even overturn Humphrey’s Executor, potentially redrawing the boundaries of presidential control over independent federal agencies.
The two officials at the heart of the case were both appointed by former President Joe Biden.
Cathy Harris served on the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which hears appeals from federal workers. Her reinstatement is particularly notable given Trump’s plans for a sweeping overhaul of the federal workforce. The MSPB is viewed as a key check on efforts to eliminate career civil service protections.
Gwynne Wilcox was a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which oversees disputes between unions and employers. Her removal left the five-member board without a quorum, effectively stalling hundreds of pending labor cases. Wilcox is also historically significant as the first Black woman to serve on the board in its 90-year history.
Government lawyers defended the firings by claiming that the president must retain authority to remove executive officers, especially when they stand in the way of key policy changes.
“In Wilcox’s case, reinstatement works a grave harm to the separation of powers and undermines the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution,” the administration argued. They also claimed that Harris’s role on the MSPB made her removable “at will.”
But attorneys for Wilcox contended the president acted unlawfully by firing her without notice, cause, or due process. “The administration’s only path to victory,” they wrote, “is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a more expansive view of presidential power.”
With the legal terrain now shifting to the nation’s highest court, the outcome of this case could have sweeping implications for the balance of power between the presidency and independent government agencies. If the Supreme Court chooses to take it up, the decision could fundamentally alter how presidents govern — and how much autonomy agencies can retain in politically charged times.
In a 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, two labor agency officials dismissed by Trump. The court found their removals violated longstanding precedent protecting independent agency members from politically motivated firings without cause.
The majority opinion, delivered unsigned, leaned heavily on Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that limits a president’s ability to remove members of independent agencies unless there is evidence of misconduct or neglect. That ruling has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, especially from conservative jurists who argue it unduly restricts the president’s executive power.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it,” the court’s majority wrote. All seven judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents. The four dissenters, including three appointed by Trump, pushed for a broader view of presidential authority.
Split Court Signals Path to Supreme Court
A separate vote — even closer at 6-5 — declined to stay the ruling for one week to give the administration more time to file an emergency appeal. That signals the urgency and significance with which both sides view the case.
Legal experts anticipate the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could use the dispute to revisit or even overturn Humphrey’s Executor, potentially redrawing the boundaries of presidential control over independent federal agencies.
Fired Officials Represent Key Labor Boards
Cathy Harris served on the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which hears appeals from federal workers. Her reinstatement is particularly notable given Trump’s plans for a sweeping overhaul of the federal workforce. The MSPB is viewed as a key check on efforts to eliminate career civil service protections.
Gwynne Wilcox was a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which oversees disputes between unions and employers. Her removal left the five-member board without a quorum, effectively stalling hundreds of pending labor cases. Wilcox is also historically significant as the first Black woman to serve on the board in its 90-year history.
Government lawyers defended the firings by claiming that the president must retain authority to remove executive officers, especially when they stand in the way of key policy changes.
“In Wilcox’s case, reinstatement works a grave harm to the separation of powers and undermines the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution,” the administration argued. They also claimed that Harris’s role on the MSPB made her removable “at will.”
But attorneys for Wilcox contended the president acted unlawfully by firing her without notice, cause, or due process. “The administration’s only path to victory,” they wrote, “is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a more expansive view of presidential power.”