The Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump’s removal of two Democratic appointees from key federal boards, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over presidential authority and agency independence. The decision allows the Trump administration to continue excluding Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris from their respective roles at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), at least for now.
The ruling came after Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to temporarily halt the reinstatement of both officials, who were appointed by President Joe Biden and subsequently removed earlier this year. Both Wilcox and Harris had contested their terminations in D.C. federal court, arguing that their dismissals were unlawful and violated longstanding precedent protecting members of independent agencies from at-will removal by the president.
At the core of the legal dispute is the scope of executive power and the continued relevance of a 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held that presidents cannot remove members of independent regulatory commissions without cause. The justices did not explicitly overturn that precedent but signaled a willingness to revisit its application in future cases.
The high court’s decision was not unanimous. The three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented, raising concerns about expanding presidential control over traditionally independent agencies. Justice Kagan criticized the majority’s approach, describing it as a signal that the court is preparing to hand the president more unilateral authority over the executive branch than at any time since the early 20th century.
The Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s removal of two Democratic appointees from federal boards, handing the administration a legal victory and settling a high-stakes dispute over the president’s power to fire agency officials.
— B.Motter (@BMotter67454) May 23, 2025
Despite the ruling in favor of the Trump administration, the court appeared cautious about extending this authority further. The justices suggested they might block any attempt to dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, highlighting the sensitive balance between executive power and institutional independence. Powell had previously drawn criticism from Trump for not lowering interest rates as rapidly as the former president desired.
The case moved quickly through the judicial system. In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had sided with Wilcox and Harris, voting 7–4 to restore them to their positions. The court relied heavily on the precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor and a subsequent ruling in Wiener v. United States, both of which upheld protections for members of independent federal agencies.
The appeals court rejected the administration’s request for an administrative stay, which would have kept Wilcox and Harris off the boards during the legal process. That decision was effectively nullified by the Supreme Court’s emergency intervention, which temporarily blocked the lower court’s order.
Attorneys representing the Trump administration had argued that reinstating Wilcox and Harris would significantly hinder the president’s ability to manage the executive branch. They contended that the continued presence of the two officials could result in decisions that the administration might later have to undo, undermining the effectiveness and coherence of executive action.
Meanwhile, lawyers for Wilcox and Harris maintained that their removal disrupted the functioning of vital agencies. Wilcox’s counsel argued that her exclusion from the three-member NLRB panel could paralyze the board’s ability to adjudicate labor disputes. Harris’s legal team warned against circumventing the usual appeals process, suggesting that a hasty ruling could have wide-ranging legal consequences.
Their case is not the only one probing the limits of presidential dismissal powers. Another Biden appointee, Hampton Dellinger, who had been nominated to lead the Office of Special Counsel, also sued after being removed. Though he ultimately dropped his lawsuit following a D.C. appellate court ruling in favor of the administration, his legal arguments echoed those raised by Wilcox and Harris.
The Justice Department has indicated its interest in reevaluating the validity of Humphrey’s Executor, a move that could signal broader changes ahead in the legal framework governing executive control over federal agencies. In a letter to Senator Dick Durbin, the department stated its intention to challenge the precedent, setting the stage for further judicial examination of this nearly century-old decision.
As the legal battles continue, the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores a shifting landscape in administrative law, with implications for future presidencies and the structure of the federal government. The ultimate resolution may hinge on how the court chooses to address the enduring tension between executive authority and the independence of regulatory bodies.
