The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld President Trump’s dismissal of two independent agency leaders, marking a significant ruling on executive power. Judges ruled by a margin of 2-to-1 that Trump acted lawfully in firing Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox from their respective roles at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Background of the Dismissals
President Trump terminated Harris, a Democratic member of the MSPB, and Wilcox, a member of the NLRB, shortly after taking office in early 2017. The dismissals provoked discussion because Trump did not provide acceptable reasons such as neglect or malfeasance, which are typically required for such firings under federal law.
Legal Proceedings Overview
- The Supreme Court has scheduled to hear related arguments soon.
- Initial lower court rulings had reinstated the two officials, referencing a landmark 1935 Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor.
- The decision affirmed that while the president may remove purely executive officers at will, this authority does not extend to quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative entities.
In May 2017, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order that allowed the dismissals to remain effective pending further hearings. The majority opinion suggested that both the NLRB and MSPB operate with considerable executive power.
Court’s Majority Opinion
Judge Gregory Katsas, who was appointed by Trump, authored the majority opinion. He noted the broad powers of MSPB and NLRB, highlighting their authority to enforce rulings such as reinstatement and back pay. However, the opinion did not address whether the president might fire members of agencies with purely adjudicative roles, such as the Federal Reserve.
Dissenting Opinion
Conversely, Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, dissented. Her argument centered on the notion that the MSPB and NLRB do not possess sufficient executive power. She warned of potential political influences on the hiring decisions of government agencies, risking degradation of expertise and merit-based outcomes.
Conclusion
This ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphasizes significant issues surrounding the interactions between presidential authority and independent agencies. As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on related cases, the legal landscape regarding the independence of such agencies remains uncertain.
