Special Poll
A federal appeals court ruling on Friday gave President Trump a temporary win in his effort to expand control over independent federal agencies, lifting lower-court injunctions that had blocked him from firing two board members one from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and another from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). While litigation will continue, the decision allows the firings to move forward for now, marking another step in Trump’s broader push to assert sweeping executive authority.
Since returning to office, Trump has aggressively worked to centralize power within the executive branch, removing officials even from agencies that Congress had originally designed to be insulated from political pressure. In addition to the dismissals of NLRB member David Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris, Trump has ousted the two Democratic commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the head of the Office of Special Counsel, a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and over a dozen inspectors general across key departments.
Many of these firings are already being challenged in court. Legal experts widely believe the issue of how far a president can go in removing agency officials will soon land before the Supreme Court, which has signaled in recent rulings that it may be inclined to grant the president greater power over the executive branch regardless of traditional statutory limitations.
Laws governing independent agencies like the FTC, NLRB, and Consumer Product Safety Commission generally allow the president to remove board members only for cause such as misconduct or neglect not for political reasons or at will. But the Trump administration argued in February that such removal restrictions are unconstitutional and incompatible with the president’s executive authority.
Although Friday’s ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals technically only applies to the NLRB and MSPB, the precedent could influence a wide range of related legal battles over Trump’s firings at other independent agencies.
The three-judge panel issued separate opinions with no single majority, highlighting the legal complexity of the matter. Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, wrote the most forceful opinion, arguing that “the Government has shown that it will suffer irreparable harm each day the President is deprived of the ability to control the executive branch.”
Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, agreed to lift the injunctions but acknowledged it was “a slightly closer call.”
In dissent, Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama, strongly disagreed. She said the majority’s decision undercuts decades of legal precedent and would severely weaken both boards’ ability to function. “That decision will leave languishing hundreds of unresolved legal claims that the Political Branches jointly and deliberately channeled to these expert adjudicatory entities,” Millett wrote. She warned that the ruling would effectively trap millions of employees and employers in legal limbo, unable to access the specialized boards designed to resolve their disputes.
Trump’s move to fire the board members was initially blocked by district courts that ruled the dismissals violated statutory protections and constitutional norms. But his administration countered that recent Supreme Court trends support presidential authority to remove powerful agency officials at will, even when Congress had attempted to shield those roles from political interference.
Critics argue that Trump is directly responsible for destabilizing these key agencies, making it harder for workers and businesses to resolve disputes fairly and efficiently. With courts now beginning to side with the administration, some are asking: Is Trump going too far and what damage could be done if this legal shift continues unchecked?
As challenges continue to move through the legal system, the outcome could reshape how executive power functions in Washington and whether future presidents will face any limits at all in removing watchdogs and regulators from agencies meant to operate independently.