Appeals Court Issues Ruling in Case Involving Trump’s Firing of Federal Board Members

By /

A federal appeals court blocked former President Trump from firing two Democratic federal board members, setting up a potential Supreme Court battle over executive authority. The ruling reopens the debate about who truly controls the executive branch—elected leaders or unelected judges.

Key Facts: Appeals Court Federal Board Members Ruling

  • The D.C. Circuit Court ruled 7-4 against Trump’s decision to fire Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (MSPB).
  • The judges cited Supreme Court precedent protecting members of “multimember adjudicatory boards” from removal without cause.
  • A previous 2-1 ruling by a smaller appellate panel had allowed the terminations.
  • The ruling blocks the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay.
  • The case is now expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Rest of the Story: Appeals Court Limits on Firing Federal Board Members

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed a recent decision allowing Trump to remove two federal officials.

The en banc panel voted 7-4 to reinstate Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Both were appointed during earlier administrations and had been removed abruptly by the Trump team earlier this year.

The majority relied on old Supreme Court rulings—Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and Wiener v. United States—which say presidents can’t fire members of independent federal boards without cause.

They emphasized that since the Supreme Court has not overturned these precedents, lower courts must follow them.

Trump’s legal team asked for a stay to keep the firings in place while they appealed, but the court denied it, saying the administration had not shown it was likely to win or suffer harm without the stay.

This decision overturned a 2-1 ruling from just 10 days earlier by a smaller panel of the same court.

The move to rehear the case en banc raises eyebrows and suggests an urgency by some on the bench to push back against the administration’s personnel actions.

Commentary: Executive Power Undermined by Court Overreach

This case goes to the heart of who controls the executive branch.

The Constitution gives the president the authority to oversee and remove personnel within the executive branch.

When federal judges block that authority using decades-old precedents, they aren’t preserving balance—they’re usurping power.

Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris are political appointees.

If they serve at the pleasure of the president, then the president has the right to dismiss them.

These aren’t lifetime judges or constitutionally protected roles—they are executive branch employees.

The president, any president, must be able to run their administration without being shackled by unelected, unaccountable judges clinging to 1930s-era rulings.

The appeals court’s decision leaves the public asking: if a president can’t fire officials who work under him, is he truly in charge?

This ruling blurs the lines between the branches of government and invites future legal chaos every time a new administration wants to chart a different course.

When courts reinterpret or overextend old precedent to block lawful executive actions, it weakens democratic accountability.

Voters elect presidents to govern—not to be managed by the judiciary.

If the courts can override firings in the executive branch, then the people’s voice is muted.

The Supreme Court now has a chance to reassert the principle that presidents must have the power to run the executive branch.

Anything less turns agency leadership into a game of judicial appointments rather than executive decisions.

The Bottom Line: Supreme Court to Decide Presidential Control Over Federal Board Members

This ruling is a direct challenge to the authority of the president over his own administration.

The appeals court decision strips away a basic executive power—the right to remove political appointees.

As the case moves to the Supreme Court, the stakes are high.

If the Court doesn’t act, future presidents may find themselves stuck with hostile bureaucrats they can’t remove.

That’s not how representative government is supposed to work.

Sign Up For The TFPP Wire Newsletter

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You may opt out at any time.

Read Next

– CBP Reveals How Much In Tariffs Its Been Collecting Each Day, So Far

– Another State Set to Approve Over the Counter Ivermectin

– Trump Supporting Hedge Fund Manager Issues Dire Warning on Tariffs, ‘Self-Induced, Economic Nuclear Winter’

– Federal Appeals Court Decides if DOGE Can Access Sensitive Government Data

– Trump Reveals His Conditions For a China Trade Deal: Fix This $1 Trillion Problem First