A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., granted a temporary stay that blocks the reinstatement of two federal board leaders fired by President Trump, pausing lower court rulings while legal challenges continue.
Key Facts:
- On March 28, a D.C. federal appeals court halted orders to reinstate Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (MSPB).
- Both officials were removed by President Trump earlier in 2025.
- Wilcox and Harris sued after being fired, with lower courts initially siding with them.
- The appeals court based its decision on precedent supporting presidential control over executive agencies.
- Judge Patricia Millett dissented, warning the ruling may upend laws protecting officials at key regulatory agencies.
The Rest of The Story:
President Trump removed Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board in January, citing her bias against employers and a failure to align with his administration’s goals.
Harris, chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, was also dismissed shortly afterward but didn’t receive a formal letter.
Both women sued, arguing their terminations violated statutes governing independent board member protections.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell previously ruled in their favor, allowing them to remain in their positions temporarily.
However, on appeal, the D.C. Circuit overturned those lower court decisions, issuing a stay that halts both reinstatements for now.
Judges Walker and Henderson pointed to prior Supreme Court rulings that limit Congress from restricting the president’s removal powers over executive agencies.
2/ Opinion here of DC Court of Appeals decision in consolidated appeals of Harris and Wilcox. Trump fired Harris from Merit Protections Review Board and Wilcox from NLRB. https://t.co/POisz5vSJb
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 28, 2025
Commentary:
This ruling is a win for constitutional order.
Executive agencies, by definition, fall under the authority of the president.
If unelected board members are allowed to resist removal—even when they act contrary to the administration’s objectives—we no longer have a functioning executive branch.
The Constitution doesn’t give unelected bureaucrats the right to override presidential leadership.
These agencies don’t exist in a vacuum.
They implement the policies of the elected administration.
If they instead serve as unaccountable, politically protected fiefdoms, then democracy itself is undermined.
The dissenting judge’s concerns about a “revolution in the law” are misplaced.
What’s actually revolutionary is allowing entrenched officials to serve at odds with the president’s constitutional authority.
That approach flips the balance of power on its head and turns the executive branch into a hollow figurehead.
By granting this stay, the appeals court simply pressed pause on activist lower court rulings that tried to hand power back to the bureaucracy.
The legal process is ongoing, but this step affirms that accountability in government must run through the elected president—not unelected boards.
Regardless of how this case ends, the principle should be clear: the executive branch must answer to the voters through the president, not permanent bureaucrats with lifetime immunity from policy direction.
The Bottom Line:
The appeals court’s decision doesn’t resolve the legal battle but restores order while higher courts review the cases.
The issue at stake is bigger than two firings—it’s about who controls the executive branch.
The ruling rightly leans on the Constitution, not politics, to answer that question.
Read Next
– Tesla Owner Hits Back Hard After Vandal Keys His Cybertruck
– Seven GOP Senators Allegedly Attack Vance—But Refuse to Own Their Words
– He Mocked America, Flaunted Free Cash, and Told Illegals to Steal—Now He’s Paying The Ultimate Price