A major federal appeals court has issued a ruling that could significantly reshape the future of presidential authority over federal agencies. In a closely watched case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump has the constitutional power to dismiss members of two influential “independent” labor boards — a decision that challenges long-standing limits on presidential control.
The ruling, handed down on Dec. 5, came in the case Harris v. Bessent and was decided by a 2–1 majority. It represents one of the most consequential separation-of-powers decisions to emerge in recent years and could influence how future presidents, regardless of party, interact with independent agencies long thought to operate with substantial insulation from the White House.
This decision arrives at a pivotal moment, with the Supreme Court preparing to hear another major case involving presidential removal power, Trump v. Slaughter, on Dec. 8. Together, these cases could redefine the structure of the federal bureaucracy.
The Central Question: Can Congress Block a President From Firing These Officials?
At the core of the appeals court ruling lies a fundamental constitutional question:
Can Congress prevent the president from firing members of certain federal boards unless there is a specific, legally defined reason — such as negligence, corruption, or misconduct?
For decades, members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) have been shielded from removal without cause. These protections were intended to preserve independence, prevent political interference, and ensure that major employment and labor decisions were made by neutral decision-makers rather than administration-aligned appointees.
But the appeals court found that these removal protections violate the Constitution because the boards perform executive functions — meaning the president must retain the ability to oversee and direct them as part of the executive branch.
Judge Gregory Katsas, writing for the majority, framed the issue plainly. He stated:
“Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members.”
According to Katsas, because the two boards carry out tasks that fall under the execution of federal law — such as adjudicating labor disputes or reviewing federal personnel decisions — they wield “substantial executive power.” And under Supreme Court precedent, the president must be able to remove executive officers if they are not carrying out the administration’s policies.
This marks a significant departure from the traditional understanding of agency independence, particularly for bodies like the NLRB, which has historically operated as a quasi-judicial body insulated from political shifts.
Who Trump Fired — And Why His Actions Ended Up in Court
1. Gwynne Wilcox – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
Gwynne Wilcox, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2021 and reappointed in 2023, was removed by Trump on Jan. 27.
The White House notified her by email, stating that the NLRB was:
-
“not presently fulfilling its responsibility to the American people”, and
-
would be in a better position to operate “with personnel of [Trump’s] own selection.”
Trump’s removal email went further, specifically criticizing her decisions for:
-
raising “serious First Amendment concerns”, and
-
“vastly exceeding the bounds” of the National Labor Relations Act.
These claims align with long-standing conservative critiques of NLRB actions under Democratic administrations, which they argue tend to favor unions and expand board authority.
2. Cathy Harris – Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
Cathy Harris was appointed to the MSPB in 2022 by Biden and elevated to chairwoman in 2024. She was removed by the Trump administration on Feb. 10, with the White House informing her that her position was “terminated, effective immediately.”
The MSPB plays a crucial role in federal workforce oversight, acting as a referee in disputes involving federal employees and reviewing regulations created by the Office of Personnel Management. The agency prides itself on independence, often handling whistleblower cases and appeals from civil-service employees who claim unfair treatment.
Harris challenged her removal, arguing that federal law protected MSPB members from being dismissed without cause. A lower court initially agreed — but the appeals court reversed that ruling.
Why the Appeals Court Overturned the Lower Court’s Decision
The lower court had upheld statutory protections that prevent board members from being removed without cause, arguing that these protections were constitutional and necessary to preserve independent judgment.
But the appeals court took the opposite view.
The majority concluded that because the NLRB and MSPB carry out executive functions central to implementing federal policy, preventing the president from removing their members would violate the constitutional structure of the executive branch.
The court held that the president must have control over officials who:
-
enforce federal law
-
adjudicate disputes affecting federal personnel
-
issue binding decisions on labor practices
-
regulate federal agencies through rule reviews
In the majority’s view, allowing Congress to shield these members from removal would create a “fourth branch” of government — powerful, unaccountable, and beyond direct presidential oversight.
The new ruling therefore erases the lower court’s finding and reinstates Trump’s authority to remove the two officials.
The Dissent: Judge Pan Warns of a Path to Autocracy
Circuit Judge Florence Pan issued a vigorous dissent that sharply contrasts with the majority’s view.
Pan argued that independent agencies exist specifically to ensure that certain government functions remain nonpartisan. She wrote:
Allowing the president to fire these officials at will “concentrates excessive power in the President and thus paves the way to autocracy.”
She warned that some areas of government must remain protected from partisan influence, particularly when they involve:
-
federal workforce protections
-
labor rights adjudication
-
whistleblower appeals
-
union-employer dispute resolution
Pan emphasized that the public benefits when key decision-makers operate without fear of immediate removal due to political disagreements.
Her dissent sets up a clear philosophical contrast that the Supreme Court will likely confront in the coming months:
Should expert-driven agencies be independent — or directly accountable to the president?
The Supreme Court Already Signaled Where It Stands
Earlier this year, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to halt an injunction that prevented the president from removing Harris and Wilcox. The Court granted the stay, strongly suggesting it agreed with the administration’s argument.
In granting the stay, the justices indicated:
-
The government was likely to win the underlying legal battle.
-
Allowing fired officials to continue exercising executive power would be more harmful than temporarily removing them.
-
Constantly reinstating and firing officials during litigation would create undesirable disruption.
This early signal suggests the Supreme Court may be prepared to further expand presidential removal power.
Another Major Challenge Ahead: Trump v. Slaughter
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling lands just as the Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in Trump v. Slaughter on Dec. 8, a case that could have even broader consequences.
In that case, Trump dismissed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter on March 18, arguing that her policy positions were incompatible with his administration’s priorities.
Slaughter’s background is unique:
-
She was originally appointed by Trump in 2018 to fill a Democratic-designated seat on the FTC.
-
She was reappointed in 2023 by Biden.
Her removal raises the question of whether presidents have the authority to dismiss members of independent regulatory commissions like the FTC — historically shielded under a 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
The Supreme Court will now consider whether that nearly century-old precedent should be overturned or sharply limited.
A decision is expected by June 2026.
What This All Means for the Future
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling, combined with the Supreme Court’s upcoming review, signals a moment of profound change in federal governance.
If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the appeals court:
-
Presidents would have far greater control over federal agencies.
-
Independent boards and commissions could lose protections they’ve had for generations.
-
Major regulatory decisions may shift more in alignment with the president’s agenda.
-
A 90-year-old legal framework governing agency independence could be dismantled.
Supporters of expanded presidential power say it enhances democratic accountability — voters elect a president, and that president should be able to direct federal policy without resistance from unelected board members.
Critics warn it could eliminate critical safeguards, allowing presidents to pressure agencies that are supposed to protect workers, consumers, and civil servants from political retaliation.
A Defining Moment for Separation of Powers
This ruling is more than a legal technicality — it represents a defining moment in the ongoing debate over how much control the President of the United States should have over the sprawling federal bureaucracy.
The appeals court’s 2–1 decision marks a major victory for Trump, strengthens presidential authority, and sets the stage for what could become one of the most significant Supreme Court cases on executive power in nearly a century.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
