The U.S. Supreme Court has quietly greenlit a bold assertion of presidential power, siding—at least for now—with Donald Trump’s effort to expel two Democratic appointees from federal labor boards. The decision, rendered without fanfare in a terse, unsigned opinion, lets Trump’s firings stand while legal challenges wend their way through lower courts.
The case isn’t just about two officials—it’s a constitutional flashpoint. Trump is testing how far a president can go in reshaping federal agencies that were designed to function independently of the White House. At stake is not just the fate of Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board—but the very idea that some public institutions can resist the gravitational pull of partisan control.
Both Harris and Wilcox were appointed by Joe Biden. Their terms weren’t up. But that didn’t stop Trump from issuing pink slips as part of a sweeping campaign to realign the federal bureaucracy with his agenda. Thousands of civil servants have already been shown the door under his new term. Independent oversight boards, it seems, are now in the crosshairs.
The justices’ ruling didn’t resolve the constitutional questions outright, but it did put the brakes on two lower court decisions that had shielded the officials from removal. The Supreme Court said it believed the federal government is “likely to show” that the labor boards exercise executive power—and therefore, fall under the president’s purview.
Translation: Trump may have the right to fire them, no cause necessary.
That didn’t sit well with the court’s liberal justices. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called the order “nothing short of extraordinary,” accusing the conservative majority of bypassing decades-old precedent just to hand Trump a win. She pointed to Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 ruling that set limits on a president’s power to fire officials in independent agencies. That case held that FDR couldn’t dismiss an FTC commissioner just because they disagreed on policy. Kagan argued the court is now letting Trump gut that precedent by fiat.
The implications ripple far beyond labor law. Some critics fear that if Trump can sack labor board members, what’s to stop him from reaching into the Federal Reserve next? The court dismissed that concern, insisting the Fed’s unique structure and quasi-private status keep it insulated.
Still, Trump’s critics aren’t reassured. His clashes with Fed Chair Jerome Powell are well known, as are his past threats—albeit walked back—to remove him.
For now, the damage is tangible. Harris and Wilcox are out. Their departures leave both the MSPB and the NLRB without enough members to function. With no quorum, both boards are effectively paralyzed. That means federal workers have no forum to challenge dismissals, and private-sector labor disputes are now stuck in bureaucratic limbo.
Behind the legal arguments is a simple, brutal calculation: If presidents can fire their way to loyalty, what’s left of independent oversight?
The courtroom battle continues. Lawyers for the ousted officials stress this ruling isn’t the end—just a detour. “We look forward to pressing our case,” said counsel for Wilcox. But each day that passes with empty chairs on the boards is another day the system meant to safeguard workers sits frozen.
Presidential power is expanding. Whether the Constitution bends or breaks is now, quite literally, a matter for the courts.
