The political tug-of-war over who gets to call the shots at key federal labor agencies took another dramatic turn as a U.S. appeals court cleared the way—at least for now—for Donald Trump to remove a Democratic member from the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).
In a sharp rebuke to a lower court’s earlier decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hit pause on the reinstatement of Susan Tsui Grundmann, a Biden-era appointee who had been fired by Trump earlier this year. The three-judge panel, notably all Trump appointees, found that laws protecting FLRA members from at-will dismissal may unlawfully restrict a president’s executive authority.
Grundmann, a veteran labor lawyer and former chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, had barely warmed her seat before the Trump administration showed her the door. A federal judge in Washington, however, ruled in March that Trump had overstepped, ordering her back to work and citing statutory protections that say FLRA members can only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.”
But Thursday’s appeals court decision yanked that rug out—for now. The judges made clear that the underlying question—whether presidents can unilaterally sack members of independent agencies—is far from settled, and the next word could come from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The FLRA isn’t just any agency. It referees the fraught labor disputes between federal agencies and unionized employees—nearly 30% of the federal workforce. And its decisions can reshape everything from collective bargaining rules to union protection in mass layoff situations. Without Grundmann, the board sits at a partisan stalemate: one Republican, one Democrat, and no tie-breaker.
Trump, no stranger to testing the limits of executive power, has already removed multiple Democrats from federal commissions. Each ousting has been followed by legal pushback, turning these firings into constitutional battlegrounds. At stake is a bigger, unresolved fight: Can Congress shield independent agency officials from the whims of the president, or does the Constitution grant the Oval Office the final word?
Another appeals panel in D.C. is expected to rule soon on Trump’s dismissal of other labor board members, decisions that could set the tone for how much control future presidents wield over multi-member agencies—think the Federal Reserve, FTC, and beyond.
As for Grundmann, she’s in legal limbo. Her case—wrapped in constitutional questions, political undercurrents, and executive branch boundaries—is likely heading for a much bigger stage.
