President Donald Trump has secured a significant legal victory, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of lifting restrictions that previously blocked him from firing two board members from independent federal agencies. The ruling overturns lower court decisions that had prevented the removal of Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board—both of whom were appointed by former President Joe Biden.
This decision marks a major win for Trump’s executive authority, reinforcing his constitutional power to dismiss federal officials. The ruling, issued by Judge Justin Walker, emphasized that the Constitution vests the executive power in the president, granting him the ability to ensure federal laws are faithfully executed.
“To protect individual liberty, the Framers created a President independent from the Legislative Branch,” Walker wrote in his opinion, which was joined by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.
Appeals Court Overturns Lower Court Rulings
The appellate court’s decision comes in response to a request from the Justice Department to overturn prior rulings issued by District Judge Rudolph Contreras and District Judge Beryl Howell.
On March 4, Judge Contreras ruled that Trump had violated the law by attempting to remove Cathy Harris from her position. Just two days later, Judge Howell similarly found that Trump had exceeded his authority in trying to dismiss Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Biden had appointed Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in 2022, and Wilcox was named to the NLRB in 2021 before being renominated in 2023 and elevated to chair in 2024, according to reports from the Daily Caller.
Legal Battle Over Presidential Authority Intensifies
Attorneys representing Wilcox and Harris urged the appellate court to uphold the district court rulings, arguing that if Trump wanted to expand presidential power, his administration should bring the case before the Supreme Court.
However, the Trump administration successfully countered this argument, stating that the president has the authority to remove both board members under constitutional separation of powers principles. His legal team emphasized that limiting this authority would weaken the executive branch and set a dangerous precedent.
“Restricting the president’s ability to remove executive officials undermines the separation of powers and weakens constitutional presidential authority,” the administration argued.
Biden’s Own Precedent on Removing Federal Officials
This case brings Biden’s own actions under scrutiny, as the Trump administration pointed out that Biden himself had used similar executive powers when he fired NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb just hours after taking office in 2021.
Robb, who had refused to resign, called his firing “unprecedented”, stating:
“The removal of an incumbent General Counsel of the NLRB before the expiration of their term has never happened since the creation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),” he wrote, as reported by Bloomberg Law.
In January 2023, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Biden had the authority to fire Robb, noting that the general counsel serves in an “at-will” capacity. However, the court distinguished this from NLRB board members, who, under the National Labor Relations Act, can only be removed for neglect of duty or malfeasance.
Judicial Dissent and Supreme Court Implications
Notably, U.S. District Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, dissented in the ruling, accusing her two colleagues of attempting to rewrite Supreme Court precedent to favor Trump.
This ruling is one of the few recent legal victories for the Trump administration, which has been embroiled in multiple lawsuits challenging executive orders. Among these, one of the most high-profile cases involves Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport illegal migrant members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which has been designated a terrorist organization.
Trump’s Supreme Court Challenge in Immigration Case
Following the appeals court victory, the Trump administration is now pressing the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the ongoing legal battle over deportations. The case stems from a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, which temporarily prohibits further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
In a filing with the Supreme Court, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the case presents fundamental constitutional questions about who has the authority to conduct national security operations—the president or the judiciary.
“This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country – the President, through Article II, or the judiciary,” Harris wrote.
“The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice.”
A Defining Moment for Trump’s Executive Power
With Trump’s latest legal win, the battle over presidential authority is now set to escalate further, potentially leading to a landmark Supreme Court ruling.
If the high court sides with Trump, it would strengthen the president’s ability to remove federal officials and reinforce executive power over immigration enforcement and national security policies. However, if the ruling goes against him, it could set limits on presidential authority, particularly in cases involving independent agencies.
As the April 12 deadline for the Supreme Court’s decision on the deportation case approaches, the outcome of these legal battles could reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary for years to come.