In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for the federal workforce, a federal appeals court has blocked President Donald Trump’s efforts to unilaterally remove members from two independent labor agencies—rulings that could pave the way for a Supreme Court showdown.
In a 7-4 en banc vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the administration’s bid to oust Cathy A. Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stating that both dismissals were carried out without the legally required cause.
More: JD Vance Slammed Online Over ‘Chinese Peasants’ Remark Defending Trump Tariffs
More: Trump Shuts down Biden’s Billion-Dollar bet on Anti-Obesity Drugs
“The government has not demonstrated the requisite ‘strong showing that [it] is likely [to] succeed on the merits’ of these two appeals,” the court stated in its per curiam order. “The government likewise has not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that there is no available remedy for Harris or Wilcox, or that allowing the district court’s injunctions to remain in place pending appeal is impermissible.”
Cathy Harris, a Democrat appointed by President Joe Biden to a term ending in 2028, was abruptly dismissed in February. Without her, the MSPB would lack a quorum, effectively stalling its operations at a time when the Trump administration has made clear its ambitions to restructure or reduce the federal workforce.
Harris responded by suing the administration, winning reinstatement through a temporary restraining order and later a permanent injunction by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras. While a three-judge panel from the appeals court initially sided with the administration and paused the injunction, that ruling has now been overturned by the full court.
The Justice Department argued that preventing Trump from firing board members at will would disenfranchise voters who supported him. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that legal precedent does not support such removals without cause.
The panel pointed to the 1935 Supreme Court decision Humphreys’ Executor v. United States, which, along with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, limits a president’s ability to fire independent agency officials to instances of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
More: Doug Emhoff SLAMS His Own Law Firm for $100M Deal with Trump—Kamala Harris Breaks Silence at Gala
More: Judge finds Trump admin in contempt over Deported U.S. Resident’s Return
The en banc court criticized the earlier three-judge panel for effectively rewriting precedent. “No such power to remove a predominantly adjudicatory board official is given to the President directly by the Constitution,” the court wrote.
The appeals court also found that the government failed to show “irreparable injury” by allowing Harris and Wilcox to resume their roles, noting that the constitutional claim of presidential power “only exists” if Humphreys Executor is overturned. A fast-tracked schedule has now been set for arguments on the merits, signaling that this battle is far from over.
READ NEXT:
- Dad Abandons 3-Month-Old Baby ‘Foaming at the Mouth’ Before Tragic Death Stuns Community
- “Yes, I Do, Your Honour”: Diddy rejects last chance to take plea deal three days before trial
- VP Vance Breaks Silence on Mike Waltz Reassignment: ‘Not a Firing, But Strategy’
- Kim Kardashian increases security following Kanye West’s explosive claims
- 6-Year-Old Girl Found in Bucket as Louisiana Stepmom Claims Memory Loss in Murder Trial