Appeals court overturns job security regulations at two independent agencies

On Friday, a federal appeals court ruled that President Trump has the authority to dismiss heads of two independent federal agencies without providing a reason, declaring their legal job protections unconstitutional. The decision came from a 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which determined that limits on presidential removal powers at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) breach the separation of powers principle.

This ruling leaves Democratic members Gwynne Wilcox of the NLRB and Cathy Harris of the MSPB excluded from their roles, a situation that has persisted since the Supreme Court intervened in May.

Trump removed Wilcox and Harris as part of a broader strategy to increase presidential oversight of independent agencies, extending executive influence over regulatory bodies. Historically, the Supreme Court has allowed certain federal agencies to have protections against arbitrary removal, based on the 90-year-old precedent set in Humphreys Executor v. United States, which applies to agencies performing quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative duties. In May, the justices indicated that the NLRB and MSPB exercised sufficient executive authority to fall outside this protection.

Fridays appeals court decision reinforced that view. The NLRB and MSPB exercise significant powers that are inherently executive in nature and unlike the limited quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial powers recognized in Humphreys Executor, wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas. Consequently, Congress cannot restrict the Presidents authority to remove members of these boards.

Katsas, joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walkerboth appointees of Trumpemphasized that the ruling does not apply to all independent agencies, leaving questions about entities such as the Federal Reserve unresolved.

In dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Florence Pan, appointed by President Biden, warned that the majoritys logic threatens the independence of roughly thirty-three federal agencies by expanding presidential control over bodies previously shielded from direct executive oversight. While the analysis is framed narrowly, it effectively redefines the executive powers that must remain under the Presidents command, Pan wrote.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Monday regarding Trumps removal of officials at the Federal Trade Commission, another independent agency. That case could potentially overturn the 90-year-old precedent entirely.

Author: Riley Thompson