The Supreme Court just sidestepped a showdown over whether President Trump can send Shira Perlmutter, the U.S. Copyright Office director, packing.
The Hill reported that the Supreme Court has opted to postpone ruling on Perlmutter’s firing until it tackles two similar cases involving the dismissals of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter and Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook.
This saga kicked off in May when Trump fired Perlmutter, alongside her boss, the Librarian of Congress, in a move that raised more than a few eyebrows.
Curiously, Perlmutter’s dismissal came just a day after her office dropped a report challenging the legality of using copyrighted content to train AI models—a hot-button issue in today’s tech-driven world.
Trump didn’t stop at the firing; he promptly tapped Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to take the reins of the Copyright Office, signaling a clear intent to reshape the agency’s direction.
Perlmutter, however, wasn’t about to go quietly, appealing her termination with claims that Trump publicly contradicted her findings, suggesting a personal vendetta rather than a policy disagreement.
The legal wrangling took a turn when Perlmutter lost in district court, only for a divided appeals panel in the D.C. Circuit to rule 2-1 that her firing was likely unlawful, putting a temporary halt to her removal.
The majority of the panel argued that a president shouldn’t be able to oust a legislative branch official for advising Congress, a stance that’s got conservatives scratching their heads about overreach by the judiciary.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer fired back, calling the panel’s view that the Copyright Office falls under the legislative branch a “startling about-face,” and insisting the “core premise” of their logic is “fundamentally wrong.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has sought an emergency order to override the appeals court’s block on Perlmutter’s firing, arguing the lower court’s reasoning is flat-out mistaken.
Perlmutter’s legal team, backed by Democracy Forward, countered with a sharp rebuke, describing the administration’s stance as an “inexcusable mess” of Congress’s intent for library governance, and warning that ignoring congressional limits on presidential power undermines constitutional balance.
They further argued, “It is also undoubtedly in the public interest that the Court prevent the President’s unconstitutional actions, rather than permit him to act illegally and have his way.”
Talk about a swing for the fences—yet it’s hard not to wonder if this is more about protecting bureaucratic turf than principle.
Adding fuel to the fire, U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker dissented in the appeals ruling, pointing out that the Supreme Court has often allowed Trump’s firings to proceed during legal challenges, and he wouldn’t have let Perlmutter cling to her post.
Now, with the Supreme Court deferring its decision until after arguments in Slaughter’s case next month and Cook’s in January, it’s clear this isn’t just about Perlmutter—it’s a broader test of how much leash independent agencies get under a president determined to drain the swamp.
Democracy Forward’s president, Skye Perryman, hailed the delay as a win for the rule of law and the Library of Congress’s independence, but let’s be real: this fight is far from over, and the outcome could reshape how much power a president wields over so-called “independent” entities.
