In a closely watched decision that could reshape the balance of power between the U.S. presidency and independent federal agencies, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that President Donald Trump acted lawfully in firing two prominent officials from independent agencies earlier this year. The 2-to-1 decision, handed down on December 5, 2025, marks a significant victory for Trump and sets the stage for further legal battles over the scope of presidential authority.
At the heart of the case were Cathy Harris, a Democratic member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Both were dismissed by President Trump within weeks of his return to office in early 2025. Notably, Trump provided no specific reason for their firings—such as neglect of duty or malfeasance—despite federal laws that typically restrict the removal of such officials to instances where cause can be demonstrated.
The MSPB plays a pivotal role in adjudicating federal employees’ appeals of personnel actions taken by government agencies, while the NLRB oversees union elections and hears cases involving unfair labor practices. Both boards are composed of multiple members who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serving staggered terms designed to insulate them from political swings and ensure continuity of expertise.
Initially, lower courts sided with Harris and Wilcox, ordering their reinstatement. Their reasoning leaned heavily on a 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor, which famously limited the president’s removal power over officials at agencies whose duties are “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” That landmark case has long been a bulwark against executive overreach, upholding the independence of agencies tasked with specialized, often technical, regulatory functions.
However, the Trump administration appealed, and in May 2025, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order allowing the firings to stand while the case moved forward. According to NPR, the Supreme Court’s unsigned order stated, “The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power.” This signaled that the high court was open to reconsidering the boundaries of presidential authority over independent agencies.
On December 5, the D.C. Circuit’s majority opinion, authored by U.S. Circuit Court Judge Gregory Katsas—a Trump appointee—echoed the Supreme Court’s preliminary assessment. Judge Katsas argued that both the NLRB and MSPB wielded “significant executive power,” citing their substantive rulemaking authority and their broad ability to order remedies such as reinstatement and back pay. In his view, these powers placed the agencies firmly within the president’s sphere of influence, thus justifying Trump’s actions.
“The agencies’ powers are not merely advisory or adjudicatory; they are substantial and impact the executive branch’s ability to enforce federal law,” Katsas wrote. He stopped short of addressing whether the president could remove officials from agencies that are “purely adjudicatory” in nature, and he deliberately avoided the thorny question of whether entities like the Federal Reserve should remain insulated from presidential reach.
But not everyone on the bench agreed with this expansive view of executive power. Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, issued a forceful dissent. She contended that the MSPB and NLRB do not, in fact, wield the kind of executive authority that would justify at-will removal by the president. Instead, she warned, granting the president such broad firing power could have far-reaching and damaging consequences for American governance.
“We may soon be living in a world in which every hiring decision and action by any government agency will be influenced by politics, with little regard for subject-matter expertise, the public good, and merit-based decision-making,” Pan cautioned in her dissent, as quoted by Beritaja. Her words echoed a growing concern among some legal scholars and public servants: that eroding the independence of agencies risks undermining the very checks and balances designed to protect the public interest from partisan interference.
The ruling arrives amid broader debates over the structure and function of federal agencies. In recent years, the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to revisit and sometimes upend longstanding precedents governing agency independence. For instance, in cases involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Court has chipped away at statutory protections that once shielded agency heads from presidential dismissal.
Supporters of the D.C. Circuit’s decision argue that the president, as the head of the executive branch, must be able to ensure that federal agencies faithfully execute the law and align with the administration’s policy priorities. They contend that excessive insulation of agency officials can lead to unaccountable bureaucracies and stymie democratic responsiveness. “The president needs to have the authority to remove officials who are not carrying out the administration’s agenda,” one legal analyst told NPR (paraphrased for context).
On the other hand, critics warn that such sweeping authority opens the door to politicization and instability. If every change in administration brings a wholesale turnover of agency leadership, they argue, the result could be a loss of institutional knowledge and a weakening of merit-based decision-making. Judge Pan’s dissent reflects this anxiety, highlighting the risk that “subject-matter expertise” and the “public good” could be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
The case also raises questions about the future of other independent agencies, including financial regulators and commissions overseeing everything from communications to environmental protection. While Judge Katsas declined to address whether the president could remove officials from agencies that are “purely adjudicatory,” the logic of the majority opinion suggests that many agency heads may now be more vulnerable to presidential removal than previously thought.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in a similar case next week, legal observers are bracing for a decision that could redefine the contours of executive power for decades to come. The outcome will not only affect the fate of Harris and Wilcox but could also reverberate across the entire landscape of federal administration, reshaping how—and by whom—America’s laws are enforced.
For now, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling stands as a testament to the enduring tension between the need for effective executive leadership and the imperative of safeguarding independent, expert governance. Whether this balance will tip further toward presidential control or swing back toward agency autonomy remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the stakes for American democracy have rarely felt higher.