Trump-Era Power Play Sparks Court Showdown Over Copyright Chief’s Sudden Ouster

In a dramatic escalation of tensions over the independence of U.S. government agencies, former Copyright Office Director Shira Perlmutter has taken the Trump administration to court, claiming her abrupt dismissal was not just improper—it was unconstitutional.

Perlmutter was fired by email on May 10, a move she says sidesteps legal protocols and violates the very structure of power outlined by Congress. In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., she’s asking for her removal to be nullified and for her role to be reinstated—arguing that only Congress has the authority to remove her from the post.

The timing of her ouster was no coincidence, according to the lawsuit. Just one day before she was shown the virtual door, the Copyright Office had released a report drawing sharp lines around how artificial intelligence and copyright law intersect—particularly criticizing tech companies’ use of copyrighted works to train AI models. The message from her office was clear: AI developers may not have a free pass to mine copyrighted content without consequence.

That report didn’t sit well with some of the industry’s biggest players, including OpenAI and Meta, who have warned that copyright restrictions could stifle the growth of AI in the U.S. The White House has stayed silent on the firing, offering no justification or response.

Perlmutter’s case is unfolding against a broader backdrop of legal friction. Just hours before her suit landed in court, the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s earlier firings of two Democratic labor board members to stand while their own challenges play out—further fueling debate over how much control the presidency should exert over so-called independent agencies.

The Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, is supposed to operate above the political fray. Lawmakers had intentionally structured it that way. Now, that very insulation is being put to the test in court.

Perlmutter isn’t just fighting for her job—she’s challenging what she calls a dangerous overreach that could ripple across every independent federal agency in America.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Scroll to Top