The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump has the authority to remove independent federal regulators, delivering a significant win for the executive branch.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices sided with the Trump administration, temporarily blocking lower court rulings that attempted to limit the president’s removal powers.
The case stemmed from Trump’s effort to dismiss two officials: Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Both Wilcox and Harris had been appointed by former President Joe Biden and were serving terms scheduled to last until 2028.
After Trump ordered their removal earlier this year, both officials challenged the decision in federal court, claiming their roles were protected and could only be terminated for cause.
Two lower court judges ruled in their favor, directing the Trump administration to keep Wilcox and Harris in their posts while legal challenges played out.
The Department of Justice, under Solicitor General D. John Sauer, appealed the rulings and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene on constitutional grounds, Trending Politics reported.
Chief Justice John Roberts initially issued an administrative stay to temporarily halt the enforcement of the lower court orders.
Thursday’s ruling from the full court extended that stay, allowing Trump’s removals to stand while the appeals process continues.
The Court’s unsigned two-page order emphasized that greater harm would result from allowing a removed officer to continue exercising executive power.
It stated the government “faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”
The decision split the court along ideological lines, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent.
In an eight-page dissent, Kagan wrote that she would have denied the Trump administration’s request, describing the ruling as “nothing short of extraordinary.”
The Trump administration maintained that the Constitution grants the president full authority to remove executive officials, unless Congress clearly states otherwise under a narrow exception.
Solicitor General Sauer argued that the 1935 Supreme Court precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States only applies to multi-member regulatory commissions and not to the officials in question.
Wilcox and Harris raised concerns that Trump’s position could lead to broader dismissals, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument, distinguishing the Fed as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a different historical context.
Trump’s legal team had requested either an emergency stay or a full ruling on the merits of the constitutional issue at stake.
The current ruling grants temporary relief while the D.C. Circuit Court continues to evaluate the broader constitutional claims.
If necessary, the case could return to the Supreme Court for a final decision on presidential removal powers.
The decision is likely to affect the future of federal regulatory appointments and removals.
It also reinforces the president’s authority over personnel within the executive branch.
Trump’s move to reshape federal agencies has been central to his effort to reduce bureaucratic resistance.
The Biden-era appointees challenged Trump’s authority, but the court sided with the sitting president’s powers under Article II.
The ruling is being viewed as a key moment in the ongoing legal and constitutional battles over the federal administrative state.
With this decision, Trump’s authority to remove entrenched regulatory officials has gained substantial legal backing.
The litigation will continue in the lower courts, but for now, Trump’s position has been upheld by the highest court in the nation.
