In a critical move, the Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute regarding the authority to dismiss board members of two independent federal agencies: the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This action follows recent rulings from federal judges in Washington, D.C., which allowed these officials to remain in their positions despite presidential efforts to terminate them.

Context of the Dispute

D. John Sauer, the current Solicitor General, characterized the situation as “untenable,” emphasizing that it raises significant constitutional issues about the extent of presidential power over agency leaders. During this court action, Sauer stated, “The President must be able to supervise agency heads who wield substantial executive authority,” implying that Congress should not be able to limit the President’s power to remove these officials without cause.

Immediate Court Action

Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administrative stay on the lower court orders, effectively pausing their effect while the Supreme Court evaluates the government’s appeal. He has requested a response to these matters by 5 p.m. on April 15.

Details of the Agencies Involved

The MSPB is responsible for overseeing personnel practices in the federal government. It is comprised of three members, with the requirement that at least one member represents a different political party. In contrast, the NLRB, which protects union-related employee rights, consists of five members. Currently, due to the lack of a quorum after the President’s recent dismissal of Wilcox, the NLRB can only operate with two members.

Legal Precedents and Arguments

The legal arguments hinge on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 ruling which determined that while a president has general authority to remove subordinates, Congress can stipulate specific grounds for removal of heads of independent agencies. Lower court rulings have leaned on this precedent to assert that the removals of Harris and Wilcox were unconstitutional.

Judge Rudolph Contreras supported Harris, agreeing that the MSPB’s member removal provisions are constitutional, while Judge Beryl Howell similarly ruled in favor of Wilcox, indicating that her dismissal was unlawful.

Implications for Governance

Sauer contends that the courts’ interventions have not only caused operational disruptions within the agencies but have also clouded the legal standing of their actions and left the presidential authority ambiguous. He warns that the orders from the district judges should be stayed, asserting, “No court has previously intervened to reinstate a fired agency head until this year.”

Next Steps

The Supreme Court is expected to examine this dispute promptly. Sauer has urged the Court to address the core issues directly, potentially avoiding the lengthy appellate process. Additional briefing and oral arguments could occur in May, with a decision anticipated by late June or early July.