Trump Challenges Bureaucracy, Seeks Firing Power via SCOTUS

Historic building with columns under a dynamic sky.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts grants President Trump temporary authority to remove Biden appointees from independent agencies while a landmark constitutional challenge moves forward.

Key Insights

The Supreme Court is evaluating whether presidents can fire independent agency officials “at will,” potentially overturning a 1935 precedent that limits presidential power.
Two Biden appointees – Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (MSPB) – were removed by the Trump administration but temporarily reinstated by a lower court.
Chief Justice Roberts issued an “administrative stay” allowing Trump to proceed with the removals while the Court considers the broader constitutional question.
The administration argues the case involves fundamental separation of powers principles that harm presidential authority.
A final decision could dramatically reshape presidential control over the federal bureaucracy by July 2025.

Presidential Authority vs. Agency Independence

The Trump administration has won a temporary victory at the Supreme Court in its effort to assert greater control over independent federal agencies. Chief Justice John Roberts paused a federal appeals court ruling that had reinstated two Biden-appointed officials to their positions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The case centers on President Trump’s attempt to remove these officials without demonstrating the “cause” traditionally required for such dismissals, bringing a longstanding constitutional debate to the forefront.

At issue is a 1935 Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, which has long limited presidential power to fire independent board members without cause. Conservative legal scholars have criticized this precedent for decades, arguing it unconstitutionally restricts the president’s executive authority. The current case could provide the Court’s conservative majority an opportunity to reconsider or significantly narrow this precedent, potentially expanding presidential control over the federal bureaucracy.

Trump vs. the Constitution: The Legal and Institutional Challenges of an Unconstrained Presidency

The second Trump administration presents a fundamental test for the resilience of the American constitutional system. With his return to power, the legal and institutional…

— Niels Groeneveld (@nigroeneveld) March 10, 2025

The Officials at the Center of the Dispute

The dispute involves two Biden appointees: Gwynne Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the NLRB who was confirmed for a second term in September 2023, and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. After President Trump took office in 2025, his administration removed both officials. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently voted to reinstate them while their cases proceed, creating the current standoff that reached the Supreme Court.

“The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day—much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation,” argued Solicitor General D. John Sauer

The removal of Wilcox had immediate practical effects, as it left the NLRB without a quorum to resolve labor cases. Similarly, the MSPB, where Harris served, plays a crucial role in reviewing federal worker disputes and could potentially impact President Trump’s workforce reduction efforts. The administration contends that requiring these officials to remain in their positions undermines presidential authority and effective governance.

Constitutional Questions and Next Steps

The administration has asked the Supreme Court to review these cases on an expedited basis, potentially scheduling arguments for a special session in May with a decision expected by July. Solicitor General Sauer has framed the dispute in stark constitutional terms, arguing that the reinstatement of the board members “causes grave and irreparable harm to the President and to our Constitution’s system of separated powers.”

“This case raises a constitutional question of profound importance: whether the President can supervise and control agency heads who exercise vast executive power on the President’s behalf, or whether Congress may insulate those agency heads from presidential control by preventing the President from removing them at will,” stated Solicitor General D. John Sauer

Meanwhile, attorneys for Wilcox maintain that her firing lacked due process and was not justified by neglect or malfeasance as required by current law. They have characterized the Supreme Court appeal as the administration’s “only path to victory.” Roberts’ temporary stay provides the Court time to consider the matter fully, with officials ordered to file briefs by the following Tuesday. The ultimate decision could fundamentally reshape the relationship between the presidency and the administrative state.