The battle over presidential power and independent agencies is reaching a boiling point, with the Justice Department making a bold push to solidify control. At the heart of this legal showdown is President Donald Trump’s attempt to replace a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member whom he unlawfully fired—a move that underscores the irony of the situation. The MSPB was originally established by Congress to protect federal employees from political retaliation, granting its leaders long-term appointments and removal protections. Yet, in a dramatic twist, the very agency designed to shield civil servants from partisan influence is now being subjected to it.
In a heated hearing before U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington, D.C., the Justice Department’s Jeremy Newman argued against reinstating the fired MSPB member, Cathy Harris. Even if the judge determined that her removal was illegal, Newman insisted she should not be reinstated. Instead, he proposed backpay as the sole remedy, effectively allowing Trump to either leave the seat vacant—crippling the agency—or install a nominee of his choice, furthering the administration’s control over what is supposed to be an independent body.
This case is just one of many flooding federal courts, as Trump and Elon Musk have executed mass firings of independent agency members. These moves have sparked numerous lawsuits, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown that could redefine the limits of presidential removal power. The Roberts Court has already been steadily eroding removal protections, leaving only a handful of agencies, including the Federal Reserve and MSPB, as bastions of true independence within the executive branch.
One of the most striking aspects of this case is the broader implications it carries. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of the administration’s argument, it could dismantle the remaining protections that keep independent agencies free from direct presidential control. Such a ruling would align with the unitary executive theory, a once-fringe constitutional interpretation that asserts near-absolute presidential authority over the executive branch. While this theory was once dismissed as radical, it now has firm supporters within the Supreme Court.
Judge Contreras pushed back on several of Newman’s arguments, noting that some of his legal justifications relied on dissenting opinions rather than majority rulings. His skepticism hinted at the potential for a ruling against the administration, but legal experts warn that any decision at this level is likely to be appealed, with the Supreme Court ultimately deciding the fate of independent agencies.
The legal debate has even drawn attention to the Federal Reserve, an institution that, despite its independence, could become the next target in this battle for control. Harris’ attorney, Nathaniel Zelinsky, used the Fed as a key point in his argument, warning that if MSPB’s structure is deemed unconstitutional, the same logic could be applied to the Federal Reserve—an outcome that could trigger economic instability.
“The government is a bit mealy-mouthed on this piece, but seems to acknowledge that the Federal Reserve Board is constitutional—and for all of our sakes, I hope that’s true,” Zelinsky said, driving home the potential stakes of the case.
With this argument, lawyers opposing Trump’s efforts are strategically crafting their cases, hoping that conservative justices on the Supreme Court will hesitate before issuing a ruling that could throw the economy into chaos. While many of these justices may support the unitary executive theory, they may also recognize the risks of undermining the Federal Reserve’s independence, given its crucial role in maintaining economic stability.
As of now, the Trump administration claims it wants to keep the Fed partially independent. In a recent executive order, the White House asserted presidential control over all executive branch agencies—except for the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy functions. However, experts are skeptical that such a distinction can be effectively maintained, raising concerns that further legal battles over the Fed’s independence may be on the horizon.
The ongoing legal fight over the MSPB is far from over. The Trump administration has already appealed the temporary restraining order that reinstated Harris to the D.C. Court of Appeals, and no matter how Judge Contreras rules on the case’s merits, further appeals are almost certain. The ultimate resolution could shape the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies for years to come.
“In the theory you just heard, not only is the Fed unconstitutional, the merit-based civil service is unconstitutional, and the President can fire every single person in the executive branch,” Zelinsky concluded, highlighting the alarming implications of the administration’s argument.
This case is about much more than one fired official. It’s about the fundamental structure of government and whether independent agencies can continue to serve as safeguards against unchecked executive power. With the Supreme Court poised to weigh in, the fate of America’s civil service protections—and the balance of power itself—hangs in the balance.
Login