Court of appeals prevents Trump from dismissing two federal board chiefs
The decision likely sets the stage for another Supreme Court battle regarding the president's authority to oversee all facets of the executive branch.
TroibNews 
Two prominent members of federal boards, dismissed by President Donald Trump, have been reinstated by the courts for a second time.
A federal appeals court has upheld an order preventing Trump from terminating the two federal officials who are part of agencies responsible for handling employee grievances and labor disputes.
In an unusual decision on Monday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 7-4 to overturn a previous ruling by one of its three-judge panels, which had permitted the firings despite existing laws stipulating that the officials can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
As a result of the ruling, Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, are allowed to return to their previous roles temporarily—unless the Supreme Court intervenes. These boards are essential for overseeing employee grievances within both the federal government and private sector, and the absence of these Biden appointees previously left the boards without the quorum necessary to function.
The four dissenting judges on the appeals court were appointed by Republican presidents. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, one of the court’s Democratic appointees, supported the order but suggested that it should have been paused for a week to give the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.
This decision is poised to provoke another confrontation in the Supreme Court regarding the president's authority over the executive branch.
This twist of events is striking for the two officials, who were dismissed by Trump shortly after he took office. Washington federal district judges reinstated both officials, criticizing Trump for disregarding laws designed to shield them from removal without misconduct.
However, last month, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a stay on those reinstatement orders, concluding 2-1 that the laws improperly limited the president’s ability to manage the executive branch. Monday’s ruling rescinds that stay, allowing the officials to return to their positions.
In the unsigned order from Monday, the majority of the appeals court referenced Supreme Court cases from the 1930s and 1950s where the justices had “unanimously upheld removal restrictions for government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards.” Although more recent Supreme Court decisions have challenged the basis of those past rulings, they have not outright overturned them.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it,” the majority opinion stated.
Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the dissenting judges, did not focus on the majority's rationale regarding Supreme Court precedents but emphasized that the courts lack the jurisdiction to mandate the reinstatement of a presidential appointee.
“There is simply no precedent for such expansive judicial directives against officers of the Executive Branch wielding essential executive powers,” Rao argued.
The Trump administration is likely to request that the Supreme Court take up the case on an emergency basis in the coming days to promptly remove the two officials from their positions once more. It remains uncertain whether the justices will intervene or allow the appeals court to complete its process before potentially reviewing the case.
The D.C. Circuit's choice to reverse a ruling from one of its three-judge panels is uncommon. Monday’s order did not immediately arrange for the cases to be reviewed en banc by the full 11-judge bench of the appeals court; instead, it has left the final resolution to be determined by a three-judge panel on an expedited timeline.
Ramin Sohrabi for TROIB News
A federal appeals court has upheld an order preventing Trump from terminating the two federal officials who are part of agencies responsible for handling employee grievances and labor disputes.
In an unusual decision on Monday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 7-4 to overturn a previous ruling by one of its three-judge panels, which had permitted the firings despite existing laws stipulating that the officials can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
As a result of the ruling, Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, are allowed to return to their previous roles temporarily—unless the Supreme Court intervenes. These boards are essential for overseeing employee grievances within both the federal government and private sector, and the absence of these Biden appointees previously left the boards without the quorum necessary to function.
The four dissenting judges on the appeals court were appointed by Republican presidents. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, one of the court’s Democratic appointees, supported the order but suggested that it should have been paused for a week to give the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.
This decision is poised to provoke another confrontation in the Supreme Court regarding the president's authority over the executive branch.
This twist of events is striking for the two officials, who were dismissed by Trump shortly after he took office. Washington federal district judges reinstated both officials, criticizing Trump for disregarding laws designed to shield them from removal without misconduct.
However, last month, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a stay on those reinstatement orders, concluding 2-1 that the laws improperly limited the president’s ability to manage the executive branch. Monday’s ruling rescinds that stay, allowing the officials to return to their positions.
In the unsigned order from Monday, the majority of the appeals court referenced Supreme Court cases from the 1930s and 1950s where the justices had “unanimously upheld removal restrictions for government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards.” Although more recent Supreme Court decisions have challenged the basis of those past rulings, they have not outright overturned them.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it,” the majority opinion stated.
Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the dissenting judges, did not focus on the majority's rationale regarding Supreme Court precedents but emphasized that the courts lack the jurisdiction to mandate the reinstatement of a presidential appointee.
“There is simply no precedent for such expansive judicial directives against officers of the Executive Branch wielding essential executive powers,” Rao argued.
The Trump administration is likely to request that the Supreme Court take up the case on an emergency basis in the coming days to promptly remove the two officials from their positions once more. It remains uncertain whether the justices will intervene or allow the appeals court to complete its process before potentially reviewing the case.
The D.C. Circuit's choice to reverse a ruling from one of its three-judge panels is uncommon. Monday’s order did not immediately arrange for the cases to be reviewed en banc by the full 11-judge bench of the appeals court; instead, it has left the final resolution to be determined by a three-judge panel on an expedited timeline.
Ramin Sohrabi for TROIB News
