Supreme Court temporarily grants Trump power to fire agency officials
In a significant move impacting the structure of federal governance, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order on Thursday allowing President Donald Trump to dismiss leaders of two independent federal agencies without cause.
The Court’s decision supports the concept of broader presidential control over executive agencies, allows the immediate removal of two Biden-appointed officials, and signals a continued shift in judicial interpretation of administrative independence, as Breitbart reports.
The unsigned order granted a stay of lower court decisions that had blocked Trump’s attempt to remove Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both officials were appointed by President Joe Biden and are now subject to removal while the case proceeds through appeals.
Expansion of presidential control?
The ruling is based on the Court’s interpretation that federal officials in agencies like the NLRB and MSPB exercise substantial executive authority. According to the majority, this authority places them under the president’s constitutional power to remove executive officers at will, as granted by Article II of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that while it did not overrule the longstanding 1935 precedent from Humphreys Executor v. United States, it declined to reaffirm it. That landmark case upheld protections for certain government officials from being dismissed without cause.
Instead, the Court pointed to recent rulings, including Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020 and Collins v. Yellen in 2021, which struck down limitations on presidential removal powers over agency heads. The new order appears to broaden the scope of those decisions beyond single-director structures to include multi-member, bipartisan commissions.
Sharp dissent emerges
Justice Elena Kagan issued a sharp dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the majority for potentially reshaping constitutional doctrine without full oral arguments or detailed filings. She warned that the reasoning could undermine established limits on presidential power. Kagan argued that changing how courts interpret the independence of federal agencies should not come through an emergency order. She expressed concern about the broader implications for governance and agency stability.
The Court acknowledged the concerns and responded by stating that the final determination on the enduring validity of Humphrey’s Executor would be addressed following comprehensive legal arguments in the future.
Immediate impact takes shape
For now, the ruling means that Wilcox and Harris may be removed immediately, potentially leaving their respective agencies without enough members to operate effectively. Legal experts suggest the order could halt important administrative actions if the agencies lose quorum. Both the NLRB and MSPB traditionally play critical roles in labor dispute resolution and oversight of federal employee rights, respectively. With their leadership positions in jeopardy, their functional authority is uncertain in the short term.
The case, Trump v. Wilcox, No. 24A966, remains under review by the D.C. Circuit Court. The Supreme Court’s emergency stay will stay in effect while that review is underway and possibly longer if the justices later decide to hear the full case.
Trump's restructuring continues
The Court’s decision aligns with broader efforts under President Trump to reform and restructure elements of the federal bureaucracy. His administration has previously pushed to downsize the Department of Education and to establish a new Department of Justice for the Executive (DOGE), which would investigate alleged internal abuses within government agencies.
Legal opposition to these initiatives often centered on arguments that independent agencies require protection from executive interference. However, this ruling may weaken those challenges by reinforcing the president’s authority to reconfigure federal offices.
In May 2025, for instance, cases such as McMahon v. Department of Education sought to preserve agency independence on constitutional grounds, though such arguments may be harder to sustain following this latest ruling.
Federal Reserve deemed outside ruling's scope
Importantly, the justices explicitly limited the scope of their order to executive agencies, distinguishing between those entities and the Federal Reserve. The Court described the Fed as a “distinctly structured, quasi-private body,” likening it to key historical precedents.
This clarification appears intended to shield the Fed from fears that the ruling could open the door to new efforts to remove its leadership. Respondents had argued that failing to uphold agency protections might endanger the Fed’s balance of executive power.
Justice Kagan challenged that reasoning in her dissent, suggesting that protections afforded to the Fed rest on similar constitutional logic as those of other independent agencies. She warned of a slippery slope if agency independence is not clearly defined.
Trump's stance on Powell in limbo
President Trump has publicly expressed dissatisfaction with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, writing in April that Powell's “termination cannot come fast enough.” However, he later clarified that he did not intend to dismiss the Fed chief.
Advisers to the president reportedly counseled that existing laws protecting Federal Reserve officials from arbitrary removal would likely stand up in court. Legal scholars point out that congressional statutes, not Article II of the Constitution, define the Fed’s operational independence.
The justices affirmed that view, noting that, unlike standard executive agencies, the Fed’s policy-making authority stems from Congress and sits beyond the reach of traditional presidential personnel authority.
If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees to hear the full case on the merits, the stay will remain in place until a final ruling. If the Court declines to grant further review, the emergency stay will end automatically, leaving the D.C. Circuit’s decision as the controlling precedent.
