D.C. Circuit Upholds Presidential Authority in Agency Head Firings
A 2-to-1 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed President Trump's lawful authority to dismiss two members of independent federal agencies. The ruling concluded that despite federal statutes requiring "for cause" termination, the president acted within his rights due to the significant executive power wielded by these positions.
Case Background and Officials Involved
The case originated from the firings of Cathy Harris, a Democratic member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Both individuals were dismissed by President Trump within weeks of his inauguration without cited reasons such as neglect of duty or malfeasance.
The MSPB is responsible for hearing appeals from federal employees regarding personnel actions. The NLRB handles appeals involving unfair labor practices and supervises union elections. Both agencies are composed of multiple members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serving staggered terms.
Judicial Precedent and Appeals
Initial lower court decisions had ordered the reinstatement of Harris and Wilcox, citing the 1935 Supreme Court precedent Humphrey's Executor. This unanimous decision had distinguished between purely executive officers, whom the president can remove for any reason, and those in agencies with predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative duties, whose removal power is limited.
The Trump administration appealed these decisions. In May, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order that allowed the firings of Harris and Wilcox to remain in effect pending a merits hearing in their consolidated case. The Supreme Court majority's unsigned order indicated a likelihood that "the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power."
D.C. Circuit's Rationale
On Friday, the D.C. Circuit's majority opinion, written by U.S. Circuit Court Judge Gregory Katsas (a Trump appointee), aligned with the Supreme Court's prediction. Judge Katsas highlighted the substantive rulemaking powers of both the MSPB and the NLRB, along with their broad authority to issue orders such as reinstatement and back pay, as evidence of their significant executive functions. The opinion did not address the president's authority over agencies considered "purely adjudicatory" or the insulation of Federal Reserve members from presidential influence.
Dissenting View
U.S. Circuit Court Judge Florence Pan (a Biden appointee) issued a dissenting opinion. She argued that the MSPB and NLRB do not possess substantial executive power and expressed concerns about the potential consequences of granting the president increased control over such bodies. Her dissent stated that such a development could lead to government agency decisions being influenced more by politics than by subject-matter expertise, public good, or merit-based processes.