Appeals Court Says Trump Can Fire Two Biden-Era Appointees
Former President Donald Trump has received judicial approval to proceed with the removal of two board members from independent federal agencies, following a 2-1 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that lifted prior restrictions preventing their dismissal.
The decision nullifies previous rulings by two district court judges, who had barred the administration from ousting Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board. Both individuals had been appointed by former President Joe Biden.
Presiding Judge Justin Walker led the appellate court's decision, affirming that Trump had exercised his constitutional authority in the dismissals.
“Article II of the Constitution vests the ‘executive Power’ in ‘a President of the United States’ and requires him to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ ‘To protect individual liberty, the Framers created a President independent from the Legislative Branch,’” Walker wrote in the ruling, which was joined by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of H.W. Bush.
The ruling followed a Justice Department request to overturn the lower court orders previously issued by District Judges Rudolph Contreras and Beryl Howell. On March 4, Contreras ruled that Trump’s attempt to remove Harris was unlawful, and on March 6, Howell determined that Trump had exceeded his authority in seeking Wilcox’s dismissal.
Biden had nominated Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board in 2022, while Wilcox was appointed to the National Labor Relations Board in 2021, later receiving renomination in 2023 and elevation to chair in 2024, according to the Daily Caller.
Attorneys representing Wilcox and Harris urged the appellate court to uphold the rulings that had prevented their removals. Wilcox’s legal team contended that if the Trump administration sought to "adopt a more expansive view of presidential power," it should present its argument before the Supreme Court.
However, the Trump administration successfully argued that the president possessed the authority to dismiss both board members. They asserted that any restriction on this power would undermine the separation of powers and diminish the constitutional authority of the presidency.
In January 2021, just hours after assuming office, Biden dismissed NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb when he refused to resign. Robb described the action as “unprecedented,” stating, “The removal of an incumbent General Counsel of the NLRB prior to the expiration of the term by a President of the United States is unprecedented since the nascence of the National Labor Relation Act (NLRA) and the NLRB,” as reported by Bloomberg Law.
By January 2023, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Biden’s favor, determining that he had the authority to fire Robb. The court noted that general counsel served in an "at-will" capacity, unlike NLRB board members, who could only be dismissed for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office" under the National Labor Relations Act.
U.S. District Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling, accusing her two colleagues of attempting to "rewrite" Supreme Court precedent.
This court decision marks a rare victory for the Trump administration, which has faced a series of legal challenges against numerous executive orders. One particularly contentious case involves Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of illegal migrant members of a Venezuelan gang that has been classified as a terrorist organization.
On Friday, the administration formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the legal battle. The filing requests that justices overturn an order by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, which had prohibited further deportations under the act.
“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,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in the Supreme Court filing. “The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice.”