In a legal showdown that could redraw the balance of power across Washington, a federal appeals court signaled it may back Donald Trump’s sweeping claim that presidents can fire members of independent federal agencies at will—threatening to upend long-standing legal protections and rattle institutions like the Federal Reserve.
At the heart of the clash: Trump’s removal of two Democratic appointees—Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board. These agencies traditionally operate at arm’s length from the White House. But the Trump administration argues that presidents should have full authority to remove such officials, even if statutes say otherwise.
Two judges on the D.C. Circuit Court, both Trump appointees, appeared sympathetic to that view during Friday’s hearing. They emphasized a vision of an “energetic executive,” with few restrictions on the president’s power to clean house.
“Sometimes the Court, without overruling its precedent, will limit its precedent,” said Judge Justin Walker, pointing to how the Supreme Court has recently chipped away at older rulings that protected agency officials from dismissal. One such case—Humphrey’s Executor, dating back to 1935—still formally stands, but the Trump team is hoping the court will continue to shrink its influence.
Critics argue the move is a raw political grab that could let the White House bulldoze agencies designed to operate independently. The Merit Systems Protection Board is one of the few recourses federal workers have when facing discipline. The NLRB handles labor disputes in the private sector. Without Harris and Wilcox, both boards have been left in gridlock, unable to make critical decisions. The merit board alone is sitting on over 9,000 unresolved appeals.
Legal observers say the stakes are enormous. A ruling in Trump’s favor would clear a path to fire not just inspectors general and labor board members, but even officials like the Fed Chair—who typically serve fixed terms to shield them from political pressure.
Judge Florence Pan, the sole Democrat-appointed judge on the panel, raised the alarm. “The Fed regulates a very large part of our economy,” she said, pressing the administration to clarify whether Trump could also dismiss central bank leaders. Justice Department attorney Harry Graver sidestepped the comparison, insisting that “nothing here dictates what happens to the Fed.”
Yet the broader message was clear: if the court sides with Trump, presidents could gain a potent new lever over independent regulators across finance, trade, energy, labor, and beyond.
It’s a case that could echo all the way to the Supreme Court—and reshape the structure of American governance in the process.
