An influential federal appeals court has just handed **Donald Trump** a major win, ruling that he acted lawfully when he fired two members of traditionally insulated **independent federal agencies** soon after taking office.[1][2] In a 2–1 decision, the **D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals** held that because these officials wielded “significant executive power,” Trump was free to remove them **at will**, despite statutes saying they could only be removed “for cause.”[1][3]
This ruling not only resolves the fates of two officials—**Cathy Harris** of the **Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)** and **Gwynne Wilcox** of the **National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)**—but also pushes the federal government further down a path that strengthens presidential control over the administrative state.[1][2] It lands just as the **Supreme Court** is preparing to hear arguments in a similar case, setting up a potentially blockbuster showdown over the future of independent agencies.[1][4]
—
### What the appeals court decided
Soon after Trump took office, he removed Harris, a Democratic member of the MSPB, and Wilcox, a Democratic member of the NLRB.[1][2] Federal law says members of these boards can be removed only for specific reasons like “neglect of duty” or “malfeasance in office,” but Trump did not cite any such cause when firing them.[1][5] Harris and Wilcox sued, arguing that their ouster violated the statutory protections that were designed to shield them from political interference.[1]
The **D.C. Circuit** rejected their challenge. In the majority opinion, Judge **Gregory Katsas**, a Trump appointee, concluded that both the MSPB and NLRB exercise **substantial executive power**, and that under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the president must retain the ability to control and remove such officers.[1][3] He pointed to:
– The agencies’ **substantive rulemaking authority**
– Their ability to order **reinstatement, back pay and other remedies** for workers and employers[1][3]
Those powers, Katsas wrote, go beyond purely advisory or adjudicatory roles and place the boards squarely within the realm of the **executive branch**, where presidential accountability is paramount.[1]
The court therefore held that statutory “for cause” removal protections could not constitutionally prevent the president from firing Harris and Wilcox.[1][2]
—
### How the Supreme Court set the stage
This case did not arise in a vacuum. Earlier in the year, the **Supreme Court** had already signaled how it was inclined to view the dispute, issuing an emergency order that allowed the firings to stand while litigation proceeded.[1][5]
In that unsigned order, the majority wrote that the stay reflected its judgment that the **NLRB** and **MSPB** “are likely to be found to exercise considerable executive power.”[1][5] That language foreshadowed the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning and strongly hinted that a majority of justices view tight congressional limits on presidential removal power in this context as constitutionally suspect.
Now, with the D.C. Circuit’s full opinion on the books and **Supreme Court arguments in a related case imminent**, the high court is poised to decide how far presidents can go in reshaping independent agencies by firing officials who stand in the way of their agenda.[1][4]
—
### The sharp dissent – and warning signs
Judge **Florence Pan**, a Biden appointee, issued a vigorous dissent.[1][4] She argued that the MSPB and NLRB do **not** in fact wield the kind of core executive power that would justify stripping away statutory protections against removal.[1]
Pan emphasized that:
– These boards have historically been understood as **quasi-judicial** and **quasi-legislative** bodies, not tools of direct presidential policymaking.[1][4]
– Their independence is crucial for fairly adjudicating disputes involving federal employees and labor relations, areas where political pressure can be intense.[1]
She warned that giving presidents broad removal authority over such officials risks **politicizing decision-making**, undermining the very independence Congress tried to secure when it created these bodies.[1][4] Her opinion highlights a deeper concern: if the logic of the majority is carried forward, many more positions traditionally treated as insulated from politics could be brought under direct White House control.
—
### What counts as “executive power” now?
One of the most important, and unsettled, questions in this area of law is **how to distinguish** between officials who exercise “significant executive power” and those who perform more limited, adjudicatory or advisory roles.
The majority in this case leaned heavily on the fact that both the MSPB and NLRB can:
– Issue **binding orders**
– Enforce federal law through remedies that affect private rights and government employment[1][3]
Those features, it said, make their members more like traditional **executive officers** than neutral arbiters.[1]
At the same time, Judge Katsas was careful **not** to answer every question. He explicitly declined to decide:
– Whether presidents may freely fire officers at agencies that are **“purely adjudicatory”** in nature
– Whether members of the **Federal Reserve** and other uniquely structured entities must remain insulated from at-will presidential removal[1][3]
Those unresolved issues are likely to surface quickly, as litigants test how far this ruling reaches and whether other independent bodies—such as financial regulators, election administrators or specialized boards—are now more vulnerable to political turnover.
—
### Why this matters beyond Trump
Although this case centers on Donald Trump and officials he fired early in his term, the **stakes go well beyond one presidency**.
If the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. Circuit’s approach, future presidents of **both parties** could have a freer hand to:
– Remove agency heads and board members who resist their agenda
– Rapidly reshape policy in areas like labor law, civil service protections, financial regulation, and more
– Tie the work of independent boards more directly to **electoral accountability**—for better or worse
Supporters of strong presidential control argue that voters should be able to hold presidents responsible for how the government functions, and that requires the power to remove obstructive or philosophically opposed officials.[1][5] Critics counter that **independent expertise and stability** are essential, especially in technical or politically sensitive areas, and that constant turnover and pressure from the White House could make agencies less fair and more partisan.
This ruling, and the Supreme Court battle to come, sit at the center of that ongoing struggle over what the **modern administrative state** should look like—and how much independence from the president it should be allowed to keep.[1][4]
Original source: NPR News – Appeals court hands Trump a victory, OK’ing firings of two independent agency heads