Supreme Court Backs Trump’s Power to Fire Agency Officials — For Now
In a closely watched 6-3 decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court threw its weight behind President Trump’s controversial move to fire two agency officials—Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris—even though their terms were protected by laws set by Congress. This ruling temporarily blocked orders that would have reinstated both Biden appointees to their posts, sparking a major debate about presidential authority and the independence of federal agencies.
The Heart of the Matter: Presidential Power vs. Congressional Limits
At the core of this legal battle lies a fundamental question: Who really has the power to shape the federal government’s structure—the President or Congress? Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress can create independent agencies with members who serve fixed terms, protecting them from being fired on a whim. This principle was rooted in the 1935 landmark case that allowed for so-called “nonpartisan” boards with protections against removal except for cause, like misconduct or neglect.
But the Trump administration challenged this decades-old precedent, arguing that the Constitution vests the President with full executive power—including the authority to remove any executive officer, regardless of fixed terms.
What Did the Court Say?
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court sided with the President’s authority—at least for now. The unsigned order stated bluntly:
“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.”
This decision has sent ripples through Washington, especially because it overturns recent lower court rulings that had found the firings unlawful. Both Wilcox, formerly at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and Harris, from the Merit Systems Protection Board, had won in federal court, which had reaffirmed the traditional protections for their fixed terms.
But There’s a Big Exception: The Federal Reserve
Interestingly, the court was quick to clarify that this ruling does not apply to the Federal Reserve Board. The justices highlighted the Fed’s unique status as a “quasi-private” institution, following a distinct historical tradition dating back to the First and Second Banks of the United States.
Why does this matter? Because President Trump had publicly threatened to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whose term runs through next year. This ruling essentially puts that particular threat on hold—at least legally—by recognizing the Fed’s special structure.
The Fallout for Independent Agencies
This ruling raises serious questions about the future independence of federal agencies. Independent boards like the NLRB and Merit Systems Protection Board are designed to be shielded from political pressure, allowing them to operate fairly and impartially. Traditionally, members of these boards have fixed terms, and can only be removed for specific causes—political disagreements or policy differences don’t count.
-
NLRB: Created in 1935, it enforces labor laws and resolves disputes between unions and employers. The general counsel, appointed by the President, can be fired, but board members serve five-year terms and enjoy protections against arbitrary dismissal.
-
Merit Systems Protection Board: Established in 1978, this board oversees complaints from federal employees who allege unfair treatment or wrongful termination. Board members have seven-year terms and, like the NLRB, can only be removed for cause.
Why Trump’s Firings Matter
Instead of waiting for board members’ terms to expire or appointing new members to fill vacancies, President Trump chose a more direct approach: firing Wilcox and Harris before their terms ended. This tactic effectively crippled both boards by leaving them without the quorum necessary to operate.
Wilcox pushed back, emphasizing that:
“Over the past two centuries, Congress has embedded modest for-cause removal restrictions in the structure of numerous multi-member agencies.”
She argued that this system has worked, with past presidents—both Republicans and Democrats—respecting these limits, which help ensure fair governance.
The Conservative Shift in the Court
The ruling is yet another example of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority expanding presidential power, particularly over administrative agencies. This trend reflects a broader skepticism among conservatives toward independent agencies, which they often view as insulated from accountability.
Trump’s lawyers leaned heavily on the idea that the President’s executive power is broad and unqualified, giving him the authority to hire and fire officials as he sees fit. They cited the Constitution as the ultimate source of this power, challenging nearly 90 years of legal precedent that had protected independent agencies.
The Dissent: A Strong Warning
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, authored a passionate eight-page dissent. Kagan slammed the majority for bypassing the usual procedural safeguards like full briefing and oral arguments:
“Today’s order favors the President over our precedent; and it does so unrestrained by the rules of briefing and argument—and the passage of time—needed to discipline our decision-making.”
She stressed that this ruling contradicts congressional intent, long-standing Supreme Court decisions, and the nearly century-old tradition of protecting independent agencies from political interference.
What Happens Next?
The court’s order was temporary, leaving the door open for a fuller hearing down the road. But for now, Trump’s strategy stands, allowing him to maintain control over key agencies by removing officials who were supposed to serve fixed terms.
This decision highlights a crucial tension in American governance: balancing the President’s need to effectively run the executive branch against the need to protect the independence of specialized agencies tasked with important, nonpartisan functions.
Key Takeaways:
-
6-3 Supreme Court ruling supports Trump’s right to fire certain federal officials despite fixed terms.
-
The ruling overturns lower court decisions that had favored agency independence.
-
Federal Reserve Board remains protected and outside the scope of this decision.
-
The decision marks a conservative shift expanding presidential control over agencies.
-
Strong dissent warns this move undermines long-standing legal precedent and congressional intent.
-
The ruling is temporary and may be revisited in a full hearing later.
-
Impact: Independent agencies like the NLRB and Merit Systems Protection Board are at risk of losing their protection from political firing, potentially politicizing their operations.
This ruling is a striking reminder of how the balance of power in Washington can shift with new court interpretations—and how legal battles over federal governance can have broad implications far beyond the courtroom.
Login