President Trump Just Scored Another Major SCOTUS Win

Supreme Court sided with President Trump, blocking two Biden appointees from returning to federal agencies—for now—while a broader constitutional question looms.

Key Facts:

The Supreme Court blocked the reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (MSPB).
Both were appointed by President Biden and granted legal protection from removal without cause.
Trump sought to fire them after returning to office; both sued and initially won at the district court level.
A full appeals court later ruled against Trump in a 7–4 decision, prompting the case to reach the Supreme Court.
The Court’s 6–3 conservative majority has recently overturned protections for single-headed agencies.

Supreme Court Review of Agency Removal Powers

The Supreme Court issued a temporary order on Wednesday stopping two Biden appointees from returning to their positions at independent federal agencies.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued the stay after lower courts ruled that Trump could not remove the officials without cause.

The two individuals—Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board—had argued that federal law protected them from at-will removal.

These protections are based on a 1935 Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld limits on a president’s power to fire members of multi-person boards.

However, the Court has shifted in recent years, especially with its 6–3 conservative makeup.

Justices have increasingly favored stronger executive authority, striking down protections for leaders of single-person agencies in recent decisions.

The justices will now consider the constitutionality of current legal limits on a president’s ability to manage executive branch personnel.

Presidential Power and Accountability in Focus

This is a win not just for Trump, but for the principle that the president—not unelected bureaucrats—runs the executive branch.

The Supreme Court’s temporary stay rightly acknowledges that the Constitution vests executive power in one individual: the president.

Agency officials like Wilcox and Harris wield real authority.

If they can continue making decisions against the will of the president who is constitutionally responsible for executing the laws, it creates a serious imbalance in our government.

That’s why the Court’s move to pause their reinstatement is both logical and necessary.

Critics argue that independent agencies need insulation from political pressure.

But independence without accountability invites unchecked power.

These appointees were not elected by the people, yet they exercise significant influence over labor and personnel policies.

The Constitution’s separation of powers was designed to ensure the people, through their elected president, have oversight of the executive branch.

Allowing entrenched officials to defy the president under the guise of “independence” flips that logic on its head.

This case may eventually reopen the debate around Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 ruling that carved out protections for multi-member boards.

If the Court revisits and overturns that precedent, it could realign agency authority with constitutional intent—returning control to the duly elected president.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily block the reinstatement of Biden-era appointees is a strong signal that the Court may soon expand presidential authority over independent agencies.

This could have sweeping effects on how power is balanced in Washington.

For now, Trump has secured an important legal and symbolic victory—and the president’s authority stands reaffirmed.

President Trump Just Scored Another Major SCOTUS Win

Key Facts:

Supreme Court Review of Agency Removal Powers

Presidential Power and Accountability in Focus

The Bottom Line

Sign Up For The TFPP Wire Newsletter

Read Next