Supreme Court rules Trump can fire 2 agency heads, at least for now
May 22 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of President Donald Trump's firing of two Democratic board members of independent oversight agencies as litigation over their removal continues.
The conservative-leaning high court ruled 6-3 in support of the government's request for an emergency order staying several lower-court rulings that had ordered the reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
All three liberal justices dissented.
Wilcox was removed from the labor board by President Donald Trump on Jan. 27, with no cause given. Harris was fired by the president on Feb. 10, also without reason.
Both sued the government in response. District courts ruled that they were unlawfully dismissed by the president, arguing Trump exceeded his power in doing so. The courts pointed to a 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey's Executor, that permits Congress to limit the president's ability to fire officials from independent agencies.
Both Wilcox and Harris were appointed by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate. Wilcox has three years remaining in her term, and Harris has four. The boards were also created by Congress as bipartisan and independent.
They were removed as Trump fired thousands of government workers, including heads of independent agencies, in a federal government overhaul to consolidate power under the executive branch.
In the majority ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court cited the Constitution, which vests executive powers in the president, including the authority to remove officers without cause who "exercise considerable executive power."
The justices did not rule on the merits of the case, explaining that their stay is does not determine whether either the NLRB or MSPB exercise executive power, and that question is better left to ongoing litigation in the case.
The ruling added that the government faces "greater risk of harm" by allowing the fired board members to resume their positions and exercise executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being denied reinstatement.
"A stay is appropriate to avoid the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation," the majority wrote.
The Supreme Court also cooled concerns raised by Wilcox and Harris in the case about implications their removals might have on removal protections for other independent agencies, specifically the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee.
"The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," the majority said.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, writing on behalf of the other two liberal justices, accused the president of effectively disregarding Humphrey's, saying he either wants it overruled or confined and is acting on that belief by taking the law into his own hands.
"Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency -- a multi-member, bipartisan commission exercising regulatory power whose government statute contains a for-cause provision," she wrote.
"Yet now the President has discharged, concededly without cause such officers, including a member of the NLRB (Gwynne Wilcox) and a member of the MSPB (Cathy Harris). Today, this court effectively blesses those deeds. I would not."
She continued by stating that the decision in this case was an easy one to make, and was made correctly by the lower courts.
Trump, she said, has no legal right to relief, and Congress, by statute, has protected members of the NLRB and MSPB from removal by the president except for good cause.
To fire Wilcox and Harris without good cause is to upend Humphrey's, she argued.
"For that reason, the majority's order granting the President's request for a stay is nothing short of extraordinary," she said.
"And so the order allows the President to overrule Humphrey's by fiat."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Will Harvard win its legal battle against the Trump administration?
The high court has given more leeway to presidential powers, particularly on national security issues the White House has cited to justify its latest impositions on Harvard. Moreover, the battle of attrition could wear Harvard down on the financial front: the legal battles will be costly, and in the meantime, Harvard may lose students and scholars 'I think the government wins every time,' said Brad Banias, an immigration lawyer based in Charleston, S.C., and former trial attorney for the Justice Department. 'If I'm an international student and I have a choice between Harvard, Yale, Brown . . . why would I pick the one in a battle with the government?' Advertisement Under fire on multiple fronts, Harvard has filed two lawsuits against the administration: one to reverse the elimination of billions in federal funding after the school refused to agree to a series of demands; the second over the White House's efforts to block international students from attending Harvard, citing potential threats to national security. Advertisement On the latter fight, Harvard so far has won temporary relief. On Thursday night, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining barring President Trump from denying visas to all students seeking entry to the country to attend Harvard. Last month, the judge temporarily halted the administration's effort to immediately revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students. In its lawsuit filed in May and amended Thursday, Harvard accused the administration of 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and due process rights as part of an ongoing, retaliatory campaign against Harvard and other elite schools by Trump. Banias said he believes the administration's actions against Harvard were 'unlawful retaliation' and predicted the school will obtain a permanent injunction to allow international students to continue their studies while the underlying lawsuit proceeds in court. But, he said, it's 'a coin flip' as to which side wins if the case reaches the Supreme Court. On the one hand, the court historically is hesitant to restrict a president's power on national security issues. Yet in this case, Banias said, the Trump administration is unlikely to prove that all Harvard student visa holders pose a national security threat. During Trump's first term, in a 5-4 vote in 2018, the Supreme Court upheld his ban on travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries, a victory that came after two prior versions of the ban were struck down. The court found presidents have broad statutory authority to make national security judgments involving immigration. Laurence Tribe, a law professor emeritus at Harvard, said he's confident the university would prevail before the Supreme Court. Advertisement 'This has nothing to do with national security,' said Tribe, a liberal lawyer who's argued before the court dozens of times. 'The courts aren't stupid; they recognize a fig leaf when they see one.' He said Harvard has no choice but to fight Trump's actions. He noted Columbia University's more conciliatory approach: The Ivy League school in New York City agreed to change certain internal policies earlier this year in the face of federal funding cuts, but the Trump administration has continued to hammer the college. On the same day Trump announced the latest move targeting the student visas of Harvard enrollees, his administration sent a letter to the accreditation agency that oversees Columbia, writing that the school has violated civil rights laws and asking it to open an investigation. 'Columbia has seen the consequences of trying to deal with him,' Tribe said. 'We are not going to cave.' Daniel DiMartino, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, said that if Harvard wins a permanent injunction, the school will be able to continue to admit foreign students, and likely run out the clock until Trump is out of office or the administration's attention shifts. 'If there is an injunction, essentially Harvard wins. If there is not an injunction, Harvard really is in trouble,' DiMartino said. But Trump's goal, he said, is not to stop foreign students from coming to Harvard: it's to cause the university enough problems that it has to agree to changes demanded by the White House. Trump and other conservatives say Harvard has discriminated against white and Asian people in admissions, failed to do enough to tackle antisemitism, and rebuffed efforts to have ideological diversity in its professorial ranks. Advertisement 'If their goal was actually just to forbid foreign students from Harvard, they would have done it much more slowly and given them notice,' DiMartino said. 'The administration is trying to make an example out of Harvard to threaten other universities into cooperating and not misbehaving.' And in a broad sense, with the legal fees that come with protracted fights, DiMartino said, 'Harvard will lose no matter what. It just matters how much they lose.' Harvard also sued the Trump administration in April after it announced it was slashing about $3 billion in federal grants to the university. That case is pending. Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who teaches courses at Harvard Law School, said she believes the Supreme Court will come down on Harvard's side and predicted the case will move quickly because of the ongoing harm to the school and its students. Citing the administration's demand the school turn over disciplinary records and other information on international students, Gertner said the White House 'essentially wanted Harvard to be a whistle-blower,' and is now retaliating even though that information is not legally required or provided by any other schools. Northeastern constitutional law professor Jeremy Paul said the government is able to punish institutions that break the law, as the Trump administration says Harvard has in its handling of antisemitic incidents. But first, he said, they have to prove in front of a judge the institution has done so. They can't just make an allegation and then act unilaterally, as the administration has done, he said. 'The executive branch is acting as though they're both the prosecutor and the judge,' Paul said. Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
‘I don't know why the president has this problem': Trump had a history of disparaging Haiti and Haitians before the travel ban
So when Haiti was included late Wednesday in a list of countries on which Trump was imposing a near-total travel ban, some saw a culmination of a long campaign against the population. Advertisement 'Donald Trump has been very consistent in his anti-Black racism, both domestically and globally, and when it comes to the country of Haiti, the people of Haiti, he has a long track record of vile, offensive, harmful rhetoric and policies,' said Boston Representative Ayanna Pressley, who co-chairs the congressional Haiti Caucus. 'It is just purely evil.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Florida Democratic Representative Maxwell Frost, who is of Haitian descent, echoed Pressley's comment that the travel ban is 'rooted in bigotry.' 'It does nothing to make our communities safer, but it does vilify immigrants,' Frost said in a statement. 'It will devastate our immigrant families across this country.' In response to Pressley's accusations, the White House called her assertions 'lazy, unfounded and just straight-up false.' Advertisement 'While President Trump is fulfilling his promise to unite the country and keep the American people safe, Pressley is desperate to divide us and smearing our heroic law enforcement officials in the process,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement, pointing to the rationale listed in the ban. Haiti is one of 12 countries facing a near-total ban on travel to the United States under Trump's new order, which cites an inability to vet immigrants for national security risks and a high rate of people overstaying their visas as justification for the measure. There are limited exceptions, including current visa-holders, permanent residents, dual nationals, athletic teams, and certain immediate family members of US residents. Other countries affected include Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The move follows several other Trump administration actions that have had an impact on the Haitian community in the United States, including an early end to Temporary Protected Status protections for an estimated through the appeals process. Trump made similar moves in his first administration though most were ultimately blocked by the courts. The United States first granted Haitian migrants protection from deportation after the 2010 earthquake that devastated the country. Since then, a string of natural disasters and political conflicts have worsened conditions. Today, gang violence, crime, and instability are rampant on the island. Advertisement Amid the worsening situation, many Haitians sought refuge in the United States or came to join family here, either through the CHNV program, legal avenues, or without permission. Massachusetts has the third-largest population of Haitians in the US, including an estimated 15,000 who held TPS, But the influx of migration from Haiti has also spurred backlash, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who was the only Democrat in the 2018 meeting with Trump's now-infamous comments, said he doesn't understand why Haiti seems to irk the president as it does. 'His hatred over Haiti is just impossible to explain,' Durbin said. 'I've been there many times. And this is one of the poorest nations on Earth, the poorest in our hemisphere, these people are suffering and need help, and they're wonderful people. I don't know why the president has this problem.' But Republicans defended Trump's actions and denied there was any animus behind it. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican who has backed pro-immigration policies in the past, was also in that 2018 meeting. And while Diaz-Balart declined to talk about what was said, he does not believe Trump has an issue with Haitians. Advertisement 'No, I don't,' he said. 'I really don't. I really, really don't.' His South Florida district is home to a large Haitian population and others affected by the CHNV and TPS reversals, including Cubans but he defended the travel ban. 'There are countries obviously that can't guarantee a process where we know that people are [vetted] to keep the country secure,' Diaz-Balart said. 'I don't think it's unreasonable.' Former Florida Republican Representative Carlos Curbelo, a moderate who was part of the immigration negotiations in 2018 that preceded the meeting, said Trump seems to prefer 'white-collar' immigrants or those whom Trump perceives to be have been recruited or have sufficient resources to come here. 'I don't think he understands or cares that those types of comments and campaigns unfairly mischaracterize hundreds of thousands of people at a time, and I don't think he understands that just because you're a refugee or an exile, that doesn't mean that you aren't capable of making major contributions to this country,' Curbelo said. Noting the Cuban exile community where he (and Diaz-Balart) hail from, Curbelo continued: 'It's people who had to leave their country, that was not their first choice, that was their only choice, and that doesn't preclude people from becoming exceptional Americans who do wonderful things.' Pressley, though, is convinced Trump's approach to Haitians is a concerted effort. She compared the trauma inflicted on the migrant community to the terror campaign of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, saying it gets harder to fight back and project optimism when the actions layer on top of each other. 'It is terrorizing. It is terrifying. It is traumatic,' Pressley said. 'And it's just so intentional. ... Singling out Haitians, I mean, he's moved in a way that is obsessive and consistently, pointedly harmful.' Advertisement Tal Kopan can be reached at
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.'
