The longstanding constitutional tug-of-war between presidential authority and congressional limits on agency independence is back in the spotlight — and this time, the stakes are monumental. On April 10, 2025, Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administrative stay, temporarily halting lower court orders that reinstated two independent agency heads removed by President Donald Trump. This pause gives the U.S. Supreme Court time to deliberate on whether the president can dismiss these officials at will or must abide by “for cause” removal protections — a fundamental issue with deep constitutional roots.
At the core of this dispute are the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — both independent federal bodies designed to function with autonomy, shielded from direct political pressure. Traditionally, their members cannot be removed except for specific reasons such as malfeasance or neglect of duty, as established in the seminal 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
But the Trump administration is challenging the legitimacy of those protections.
🚨 Background on the Firings:
- Cathy Harris, MSPB Chair, appointed by President Biden in 2022, was terminated by Trump in February 2025. Under her leadership, the MSPB cleared a massive backlog of over 4,000 federal employee appeals.
- Gwynne Wilcox, an NLRB member also appointed by Biden, was dismissed in January 2025. Trump cited her deviation from administration policies and alleged overreach in decision-making.
Both women filed suit, arguing that their removals were unlawful under established federal law. Two federal judges — Judge Rudolph Contreras and Senior Judge Beryl Howell — agreed, ordering Harris and Wilcox be reinstated until the end of their respective terms.
⚖️ The Legal Battlefield:
Solicitor General D. John Sauer petitioned the Supreme Court, calling the rulings “untenable” and asserting that they compromise the president’s constitutional authority to oversee executive officers. Sauer’s filing raises fundamental questions:
- Can Congress restrict the president’s ability to remove agency heads?
- Are current statutes shielding MSPB and NLRB members constitutional?
- Should Humphrey’s Executor — a nearly century-old precedent — be overturned?
Sauer argues these agencies exercise substantial executive power, contrary to Humphrey’s Executor, which allowed removal restrictions only for multi-member, expert-led agencies not wielding core executive authority. He cited recent SCOTUS rulings (Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen) that struck down similar limits on presidential removal power for single-agency heads.
Importantly, Sauer also notes that no federal court has ever ordered a president to reinstate fired agency heads — a fact he says underscores the unprecedented nature of the lower courts’ rulings.
🏛️ The Constitutional Question:
The debate hinges on the limits of presidential power under Article II of the Constitution. Can the executive branch function effectively if the president is required to retain agency leaders who actively oppose the administration’s goals?
On the other hand, critics argue that agency independence is crucial for maintaining a fair, apolitical bureaucracy — especially in labor rights and civil service matters, where partisan manipulation could erode trust and stability.
The lower courts held firm to Humphrey’s Executor, emphasizing that independent, multi-member agencies — such as the FTC in that case — remain constitutional under current precedent. In fact, Judge Contreras noted the MSPB “does not wield substantial executive power” but instead focuses on internal personnel adjudications.
🔮 What’s Next?
Chief Justice Roberts’ administrative stay puts the rulings on hold temporarily, but more permanent relief will depend on the Court’s next steps. The Trump administration has urged the justices to not only freeze the lower court orders but also to take up the case now — bypassing the appeals court and ruling on the merits by July.
If the Supreme Court agrees, the outcome could reshape the relationship between the executive branch and independent federal agencies, potentially overturning Humphrey’s Executor and opening the door for presidents to exert more direct control over agencies that are supposed to remain impartial.
For legal scholars, students, and practitioners, this unfolding drama is not just another constitutional skirmish — it’s a pivotal moment that could redefine checks and balances in federal governance.
#SupremeCourt #ExecutivePower #ConstitutionalLaw #FederalAgencies #MSPB #NLRB #HumphreysExecutor #PresidentialAuthority #SCOTUS #AdministrativeLaw #TrumpAppeal #ForCauseRemoval
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment