A federal appeals court just dropped a bombshell, ruling that President Trump can boot leaders of two independent agencies without any justification, shattering decades of bureaucratic insulation.
The Hill reported that on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided Trump has the authority to dismiss heads of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), calling their job protections unconstitutional.
Back in May, the Supreme Court gave a green light to Trump’s removal of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris, both Democrats, suggesting these agencies hold too much executive power to be untouchable.
Friday’s 2-1 decision doubled down, with the D.C. Circuit declaring that shielding these roles from presidential firing violates the separation of powers.
This ruling blocks Wilcox and Harris from returning to their posts, fitting into Trump’s larger plan to strengthen control over independent executive branch entities.
For context, a 1935 Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, has long protected officials in agencies with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative duties, but this case chips away at that foundation.
Trump-appointed Judges Gregory Katsas and Justin Walker, forming the majority, argued that the NLRB and MSPB wield hefty executive powers, unlike the limited roles described in past rulings.
Katsas wrote, “The NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are executive in nature.” He added, “So, Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members.”
Respectfully, this logic feels like handing the president a blank check to overhaul agencies meant to stand apart from political winds, risking a system where loyalty trumps merit.
Judge Florence Pan, appointed by former President Biden, fired back in her dissent, warning of far-reaching consequences.
Pan stated, “My colleagues attempt to couch their analysis in narrow terms, yet they redefine executive power under presidential command.”
She’s not wrong to sound the alarm—while the majority insists this won’t affect bodies like the Federal Reserve, it’s tough to ignore the potential domino effect on other independent agencies.
Next up, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday about Trump’s firing at the Federal Trade Commission, a case that might further dismantle the Humphrey’s Executor precedent.
Many conservatives will likely see this as a victory for executive oversight, a much-needed check on unelected officials who often drive progressive policies without direct accountability to the public.
Still, let’s pause before celebrating too hard—independent agencies, despite their flaws, can act as a safeguard against partisan overreach, and weakening them calls for careful thought, not just applause.
