The legal battle surrounding the reinstatement of two agency heads, following President Donald Trump’s attempts to dismiss them, may set a precedent in the ongoing discourse regarding the limits of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies. On Wednesday, the Trump administration sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to block orders from federal judges in Washington, D.C. aimed at maintaining board members at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in their positions. Subsequently, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay, pausing the orders while the justices deliberate on the matter. The Court has called for a response by Tuesday, April 15. (Read more on SCOTUSblog).
The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, likened the situation to a constitutional crisis, emphasizing whether the President retains the authority to supervise and control agency heads or if Congress can effectively shield these leaders from presidential dismissal. Sauer argued that forcing Trump to delegate his executive authority to appointees who contradict his policy goals, even temporarily, is untenable. He urged the Supreme Court to consider the appeals against the orders by U.S. District Judges Rudolph Contreras and Beryl Howell, which favor reinstating Cathy Harris at the MSPB and Gwynne Wilcox at the NLRB.
At the crux of the legal argument is the interpretation of the Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decision in 1935, which established that Congress can create independent regulatory agencies whose members can only be removed “for cause.” According to the Trump administration, this case has limited applicability and should not prevent the President from dismissing members of the MSPB and NLRB, especially when these agencies exert significant executive authority by enforcing labor and civil service laws.
The controversy highlights the balance of power between the branches of government, influenced by recent cases like Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen, where the Supreme Court ruled against restrictions on the President’s dismissal power, except for multi-member expert agencies. Judges Contreras and Howell ruled that these precedents do not undermine the constitutionality of the removal protections under Humphrey’s Executor. However, Sauer contends that the chaotic implications of rehiring agency heads dismissed by the President demand judicial intervention.
The full D.C. Circuit Court’s decision to uphold the reinstatement orders by a 7-4 vote underscores the divided opinions on this matter. As the matter awaits resolution by the Supreme Court, it continues to highlight the ongoing tensions in federal agency oversight and presidential authority.