Supreme Court implies it will let Trump fire members of any agency other than the Fed
The high court signaled in its opinion that it may ultimately overturn a 1935 precedent and side with Trump in the underlying cases, allowing him to permanently remove without cause members of boards that Congress created to be independent of direct presidential control. But the court also indicated that it would distinguish between the Fed and other agencies.
The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate Washington-based federal judges that had shielded Cathy Harris from being dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox from being removed from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) before their terms expire. Their legal challenges are ongoing in lower courts.
Both were appointed to their posts by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden.
In a brief, unsigned opinion, the court said that its action on Thursday "reflects our judgment that the government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power."
"Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the president," the court wrote, "he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents."
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the opinion.
The opinion also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve.
"We disagree," the court stated. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States."
The legal fight over these firings emerged as an important test of Trump's efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from the president's direct control.
Trump's move to oust Harris and Wilcox was part of his far-reaching shakeup and downsizing of the U.S. government, including firing thousands of workers, dismantling federal agencies, installing loyalists in key jobs and purging career officials.
Chief Justice John Roberts on April 9 temporarily halted orders by the two judges who had blocked Trump's firing of Harris and Wilcox, giving the justices more time to decide how to proceed. The labor boards after that decision by Roberts had confirmed that Harris and Wilcox were no longer in their posts.
U.S. District Judges Rudolph Contreras and Beryl Howell separately upheld federal laws protecting officials serving in these posts from being fired without cause, rejecting Trump's argument that the measures passed by Congress encroach on authority granted to the president under the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 7 declined to pause the rulings by the judges while the cases proceed after an earlier ruling by that court had permitted the removals.
Harris was appointed by Biden in 2022 to serve a seven-year term. Trump moved to fire her on February 10 after naming Henry Kerner, a Republican, as acting chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Federal workers who lose their jobs can bring a challenge before the merit board, an independent three-member panel with quasi-judicial powers, seeking to be reinstated. The board has proven to be a potential roadblock to the Trump administration's efforts to carry out mass firings of probationary workers, meaning those recently given their positions.
Trump's efforts to remove Harris have threatened to leave the board without a two-seat quorum - making it unable to decide cases - after the term of Democratic member Raymond Limon expired on February 28.
In ruling in favor of Harris, Contreras said the statutory protections for board members from being removed without cause conform with the Constitution in light of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent in a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States. In that case, the court ruled that a president lacks unfettered power to remove commissioners of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, faulting then-President Franklin Roosevelt's firing of a commissioner on that agency for policy differences.
Federal law permits a president to remove an official serving in this post only with cause such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.
Howell, the judge overseeing Wilcox's case, ruled on similar grounds to uphold almost identical job protections for the National Labor Relations Board member.
The National Labor Relations Board, which has five members when fully stocked, enforces laws protecting the rights of private-sector workers to organize, join labor unions and advocate for better working conditions, and it oversees union elections. Federal labor law generally does not allow workers to sue for violations in court, so the board is often their only recourse.
Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the National Labor Relations Board, was appointed to a second five-year term in 2023 by Biden for a new term. Trump moved to fire her on January 27. Without Wilcox, the board would lack its needed three-seat quorum because it already had two vacancies.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court lets Trump keep labor board members sidelined for now
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Days Away From Securing His Questionable Air Force One Jet From Qatar
President Donald Trump is days away from getting a $400 million 'gift' from a foreign nation. The U.S. government is expected to finalize an agreement with Qatar next week to receive a Boeing 747 aircraft to be used as Air Force One, The Washington Post reported Friday. A July 7 communication reviewed by The Post and signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for Defense Affairs Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, confirms that Qatar will give the 'donation' to the Department of Defense. The deal, months in the making, raises legal, ethical and national security concerns. While the U.S. Constitution forbids anyone holding public office from accepting gifts from foreign governments without approval from Congress, Republicans have largely shrugged off the deal. 'Can't beat free,' Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) told reporters when asked about the offer in May. Trump, who has referred to the jet as a 'palace in the sky,' predictably feels the same way. 'Why wouldn't I accept a free gift?' Trump asked Fox News' Sean Hannity in May while aboard the current Air Force One. The ethical ramifications are so apparent that even the document reviewed by The Post appears to take extra effort to explicitly state that this isn't a bribe. 'Nothing in this [memorandum of understanding] is, or shall be interpreted or construed as, an offer, promise or acceptance of any form of bribery, undue influence, or corrupt practice,' the document reportedly said. The jet would become the new presidential plane until the end of Trump's term before being turned over to Trump's presidential library foundation. However, even before it can be used, the U.S. Air Force will likely spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on renovating the plane — a process that could take years. Trump has made clear he'll accept 'gifts' from any nation willing to give them. At a White House meeting in May, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa jokingly told Trump he was 'sorry I don't have a plane to give you.' 'I wish you did,' Trump responded. 'I'd take it. If your country offered the United States Air Force a plane, I would take it.'
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Democratic Party's Brand Is Cooked
Voters have increasingly little faith in the Democrats, a new Wall Street Journal poll found, with the party reaching its lowest favorability rating in more than three decades. Voters overwhelmingly believe that Republicans are better able to handle key issues in Congress than Democrats. The survey found that the majority of voters, 63 percent, have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. Only 33 percent hold a favorable view. This is the most unpopular that Democrats have been according to Journal polls dating back to 1990. As President Donald Trump enacts an increasingly authoritarian agenda and provides little economic benefit to the average American, Democrats are hopeful anti-Trump backlash will give them a strong showing in the 2026 midterm election. While slightly more people expect to vote for Democrats next year than Republicans, according to the Journal poll, Democrats' overall favorability has only dropped since Trump took office. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who worked on the survey, told the Journal. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Anzalone's firm, which consulted for both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaigns, worked on the survey with Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio. According to the survey, voters think Republicans in Congress are more capable at handling the economy, inflation and rising prices, tariffs, immigration, 'illegal' immigration, the Russia-Ukraine war, and foreign policy. On the topic of 'illegal' immigration, 48 percent have their faith in Republicans and 24 percent choose Democrats. Democrats scored higher on health care and vaccine policy. Both parties tied at 37 percent on the issue of looking out for middle class families. 'As much as I fully believe that Democrats are not doomed for all eternity, I also believe that many Democrats aren't quite grappling with the serious credibility problems the party still faces,' Democratic operative Tré Easton posted on X. 'The podcasts and everything are real cute, but we've got work to do.' Democrats also scored low in a Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month. In that survey, approval of congressional Democrats reached a new low of 19 percent, with 72 percent of voters saying they disapproved. 'This is a record low since March 2009 when the Quinnipiac University Poll first began asking this question of registered voters,' the university wrote. The Quinnippiac poll found that even registered Democrats disapproved of the party: Thirty-nine percent approved of how Democrats in Congress were handling their jobs, while 52 percent disapproved. Among registered Republicans, 77 percent approved of how Republicans are operating in Congress. In the findings from the Journal, voters are mixed on Trump. About half, or 55 percent, of voters say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is down from 70 percent in January, meaning voters have become more optimistic since Trump took office, yet Trump is not wildly popular. He has a favorability rating of 45 percent, and an unfavorability rating of 52 percent. A total of 46 percent approve of what Trump is doing as president, and 52 percent disapprove. Fifty-three percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, while 44 percent approve. On the issues of inflation, tariffs, immigration, looking out for middle class families, health care, vaccine policy, foreign policy, and the Russia-Ukraine war, voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing. On the topic of 'illegal' immigration, though, 51 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. The Republican Party is not wildly popular either, though, with 54 percent of voters having an unfavorable view, compared to the 43 percent who have a favorable view. More from Rolling Stone Trump Claims Someone May Have Forged His Signature on Birthday Letter to Epstein I Worked With Stephen Colbert. Here's Why His Cancellation Should Scare You Yes, America Is an Oligarchy Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Blues Have Big Move To Make With Breakout Forward
The St. Louis Blues' decision to tender an offer sheet to forward Dylan Holloway this past off-season undoubtedly proved to be a great decision. After the Edmonton Oilers elected not to match the Blues' two-year, $4,580,914 offer sheet for Holloway, he broke out in a major way in his first season with St. Louis.