In a dramatic week for Washington’s federal agencies, two high-profile legal battles have reignited debate over presidential powers and the independence of government boards. Former Fox News host and current U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and President Donald Trump are at the center of separate, but thematically linked, lawsuits that test the limits of executive authority over appointments and removals.
On September 2, 2025, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro filed a forceful legal motion in federal court, demanding that a judge declare President Trump’s firing of Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) board member Diane Kaplan not only lawful, but final. Pirro’s argument, as reported by Mediaite, seeks to “oust and exclude” Kaplan from the board and to invalidate what she calls a “backup plan” that could keep Kaplan in place indefinitely.
This legal maneuver, known as a quo warranto action, was first filed in mid-July and challenges the right of several CPB board members to remain in office after President Trump’s April 2025 firings. Initially, the case targeted three members—Diane Kaplan, Laura G. Ross, and Thomas E. Rothman—on the grounds that they had “usurped their former offices” by continuing to work despite being dismissed. However, after both Ross and Rothman sent formal letters to CPB CEO Patricia Harrison stating, “I no longer hold or exercise the position of Director of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” the Department of Justice dropped its claims against them, leaving Kaplan as the lone defendant.
The situation took a twist on August 26, when Kaplan’s counsel revealed a contingency plan crafted by CPB leadership. According to court documents, CPB CEO Patricia Harrison had, back on June 9, 2025, invoked the organization’s bylaws to appoint a “contingent Designated Body” to act as the board if the number of directors fell below the statutory minimum of three amid ongoing litigation. This designated body would include Rothman, Kaplan, Ross, Chair Ruby Calvert, and board member Liz Sembler.
Pirro, representing the U.S. Attorney’s Office, argued that such service on this designated body must be inherently temporary. She stated, “There are practical differences between service as a Board member and service on a designated body as a former Board member. Most important, service on a designated body is inherently temporary. If this Court rules that Defendant has been removed as a Board member but continues to serve on a designated body, the President can nominate Defendant’s replacement, subject to Senate confirmation.”
She continued, “Thus, if the President appoints and the Senate confirms a third Board member, any purported service on a designated body by Defendant would cease.” The Justice Department further contended that Kaplan’s primary argument—her right to serve until her term expires—was undermined by the existence of this backup arrangement, which would only activate if the board fell below three members and if the court ruled against the CPB.
“Defendant is not currently serving on a designated body, and it is uncertain whether she ever will,” Pirro asserted in her filing. The appointment document “purports to appoint a contingent Designated Body . . . in the event CPB’s position [in CPB v. Trump] is not sustained, an event that has not yet occurred.”
This legal drama is set against the backdrop of a broader lawsuit, CPB v. Trump, filed by the CPB in April 2025. That suit alleges that Trump’s mass firing of Kaplan, Rothman, and Ross was an unlawful “sweeping act of executive overreach.” The CPB sought an injunction to block the firings, but U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss declined to issue one, reasoning that the plaintiffs “failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim for injunctive relief or that Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm.” Judge Moss did, however, acknowledge that “important questions regarding the status of the Corporation and its relationship with the federal government” remain unresolved.
Meanwhile, the CPB, a private nonprofit established by Congress in 1967 to promote public broadcasting, continues to list Kaplan as an active board member alongside Ruby Calvert and Liz Sembler. At full strength, the board includes nine members, with no more than five from the same political party. Kaplan and Rothman were appointed by President Joe Biden, while Ross was appointed by Trump during his first term and then again by Biden. All appointments require Senate confirmation, as mandated by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
While the CPB case unfolds, another legal battle over presidential removal powers reached a critical juncture on the same day. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), after President Trump attempted to fire her in March 2025 without citing cause. According to Politico, the court’s majority—Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both Obama appointees—found that Slaughter was entitled to continue serving because federal law stipulates FTC commissioners can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The majority opinion leaned heavily on the 1935 Supreme Court precedent Humphrey’s Executor, which established that FTC commissioners are protected from at-will removal by the president. “Over the ensuing decades—and fully informed of the substantial executive power exercised by the Commission—the Supreme Court has repeatedly and expressly left Humphrey’s Executor in place, and so precluded Presidents from removing Commissioners at will,” the judges wrote. “To grant a stay would be to defy the Supreme Court’s decisions that bind our judgments. That we will not do.”
Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented. She argued that, despite the precedent, courts should have permitted Trump to remove Slaughter while litigation was pending, suggesting that federal courts “likely” lack the power to reinstate an executive branch official fired by the president. Rao noted that Slaughter could seek back pay later if her removal was ultimately deemed unlawful. “We must follow the Supreme Court’s conclusion that an injunction reinstating an officer the President has removed harms the government by intruding on the President’s power and responsibility over the Executive Branch,” she wrote.
This case is one of several challenging Trump’s efforts to dismiss Democrat-appointed leaders of federal agencies that Congress has traditionally tried to insulate from direct political pressure. In recent years, the Supreme Court has trimmed the number of positions protected by Humphrey’s Executor, but the precedent remains binding unless explicitly overturned. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, a Biden appointee, had previously ruled in July that Trump’s firing of Slaughter was illegal. Another Biden-appointed FTC commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, was also fired by Trump but resigned in June 2025 to pursue private sector work.
These parallel legal battles highlight a fundamental tension in American governance: How much control should the president wield over independent agencies? The answer, for now, remains unsettled. As both cases wind their way through the courts, the stakes for agency independence—and presidential power—have never felt higher.
