The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump may proceed with the removal of two officials serving on independent federal agencies, delivering an important interim victory for the administration while leaving broader constitutional questions unresolved.
In an emergency order issued by the Court, the justices lifted a lower court decision that had temporarily reinstated the two officials—Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Both officials were appointed under a previous Democratic administration.
The ruling was decided over the objections of the Court’s three liberal justices and allows the Trump administration to keep the officials out of their positions while the case continues through the federal appeals process.
Case Not Fully Resolved
Despite siding with the administration on the immediate question, the Supreme Court declined to fast-track the case or issue a final ruling on whether the president has permanent authority to remove the officials.
“That question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument,” the Court said in its unsigned opinion.
As a result, the legal challenge will continue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit under the standard appellate process. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case at a later date, once the lower courts have fully considered the merits.
Agencies Left Without Full Quorum
While the litigation proceeds, both the NLRB and MSPB remain without the quorum required to carry out certain official actions. The Court acknowledged this consequence but concluded that allowing removed officials to continue exercising executive authority posed a greater constitutional risk.
“The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the Court wrote.
The decision reflects the Court’s concern that executive authority could be undermined if courts require presidents to retain officials they have removed while legal disputes drag on.
Administration Warned of Delays
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that without emergency relief, the case could take years to resolve—potentially extending well into the president’s term.
“Forcing the President to entrust his executive power to respondents for the months or years that it could take the courts to resolve this litigation would manifestly cause irreparable harm to the President and to the separation of powers,” Sauer wrote in filings cited by The Hill.
That argument appears to have persuaded the Court’s majority to intervene at this stage, even while reserving judgment on the broader constitutional issue.
Longstanding Precedent Under Review
At the heart of the dispute is a nearly 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent holding that Congress may, in certain circumstances, shield officials of independent agencies from removal by the president except for cause.
In recent years, however, the Court’s conservative majority has narrowed those protections, emphasizing the president’s authority over the Executive Branch. The Trump administration argues that members of the NLRB and MSPB should not be insulated from removal and that, if necessary, the Court should overturn the earlier precedent altogether.
Legal scholars widely expect the Supreme Court to ultimately decide the issue, given its constitutional significance and the Court’s recent interest in executive power cases.
Broader View of Presidential Authority
The case reflects a broader legal theory embraced by many conservatives: that the Constitution vests executive power exclusively in the president and that independent agencies exercising executive authority must remain accountable to the White House.
Supporters of this view frequently cite Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Critics argue that independent agencies exist precisely to insulate certain regulatory and adjudicative functions from political pressure, preserving stability and impartiality.
Sharp Dissent From Liberal Justices
In a strongly worded dissent, the Court’s three liberal justices accused the majority of undermining established precedent and preemptively signaling how it intends to rule on the merits.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the decision effectively allows the president to override precedent “by fiat.”
“The impatience to get on with things—to now hand the President the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever)—must reveal how that eventual decision will go,” Kagan wrote.
The dissent warned that the ruling could fundamentally reshape the structure of independent agencies across the federal government.
Background and Political Context
The Trump administration filed its emergency appeal after the full D.C. Circuit issued a temporary ruling that reinstated Wilcox and Harris pending further review. The Supreme Court’s order reversed that outcome.
The case has drawn comparisons to actions taken by previous administrations. Shortly after taking office, former President Joe Biden removed numerous Trump-appointed officials from advisory boards and panels.
One such appointee, Roger Severino, sued the Biden administration after being removed from the Administrative Conference of the United States. The D.C. Circuit ultimately rejected his claim, ruling that the president had authority to terminate his service.
That precedent has been cited by Trump administration officials as evidence that presidents of both parties have asserted broad removal authority.
What Comes Next
The appeals process in the D.C. Circuit will continue, with briefing and argument expected in the coming months. Most legal observers anticipate that the Supreme Court will eventually take up the case to settle the constitutional question definitively.
Until then, the Court’s emergency order ensures that the Trump administration can proceed with its personnel decisions while the legal battle unfolds.
The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between Congress, independent agencies, and the presidency—and may redefine the scope of executive authority for decades to come.
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.
