Trump v. Wilcox
605 U. S. ____ (2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President's constitutional authority to remove executive officers without cause likely extends to members of independent agencies who exercise considerable executive power, even when a statute requires cause for their removal.
Facts:
- Gwynne A. Wilcox was a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- Cathy Harris was a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
- Federal statutes protect members of the NLRB and MSPB from presidential removal, permitting it only for specific causes like "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
- President Donald J. Trump discharged Wilcox and Harris from their respective positions.
- The President did not provide a cause for the removals that qualified under the governing statutes.
Procedural Posture:
- Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris filed separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging their removal by the President.
- The District Court granted relief to Wilcox and Harris, entering orders that enjoined the President's removal actions.
- The Government, on behalf of the President, filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking an emergency stay of the District Court's orders pending the disposition of its appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the Court grant an emergency stay of lower court orders that enjoined the President from removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board without cause, in violation of statutory for-cause removal provisions?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the application for a stay is granted. Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions. The stay reflects the Court's judgment that the Government is likely to succeed in showing that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. Furthermore, the balance of equities favors the Government, as it faces a greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being temporarily unable to perform her duties. The stay is also appropriate to avoid the disruption of repeated removals and reinstatements during litigation. This holding does not implicate the for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve, which is a uniquely structured entity with a distinct historical tradition.
Dissenting - Justice Kagan
No, the application for a stay should be denied. The President's actions are foreclosed by the 90-year-old precedent of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which explicitly permits Congress to create independent agencies with for-cause removal protections for members performing 'quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial' functions, as the members of the NLRB and MSPB do. The majority effectively overrules this foundational precedent on the emergency docket without full briefing or argument. The balance of equities does not favor the President; the relevant interest is not the officers' personal harm but the public's interest in the congressionally-designed independence of these agencies. The majority's last-minute attempt to carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve is unpersuasive and analytically inconsistent, as the Fed's independence rests on the same Humphrey's precedent the Court now undermines.
Analysis:
This order signals a high probability that the Supreme Court is prepared to significantly limit or overrule its long-standing precedent in Humphrey's Executor, which has been the constitutional foundation for independent administrative agencies for nearly a century. By finding the President is likely to succeed on the merits, the Court suggests a broad view of presidential removal power that could transform the administrative state, making agencies like the FTC and FCC more directly subservient to the White House. The explicit, though thinly reasoned, carve-out for the Federal Reserve indicates the Court may be attempting to preemptively contain the potential economic disruption that could result from such a monumental shift in separation of powers doctrine.
