Two members of federal government boards asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to let them keep their jobs, at least for now, after President Donald Trump fired them without cause as part of his efforts to dissolve the autonomy of independent government entities.
Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board urged the Supreme Court not to intervene in a lawsuit challenging their firings and instead asked the justices to allow the case to continue at the lower court level.
Wilcox and Harris submitted similar requests to the high court, each arguing that when Congress created their respective boards, it included provisions in the law to shield the boards from the political whims of changing presidential administrations.
“The government insists that Article II of the Constitution provides the President unchecked authority to remove Board members at will. That is not the law,” Harris’s attorneys wrote.
Wilcox and Harris were appointed by former President Joe Biden but abruptly fired by Trump soon after he took office. Wilcox was serving out a five-year term and Harris a seven-year term, and their terminations caused their respective boards to lack quorums, limiting their ability to make substantive decisions.
The lawsuits they brought challenging their firings have resulted in a whirlwind for the pair. The district court reinstated them to their jobs, a three-judge panel reversed that decision and allowed the firings, a full appellate court panel later unfired them, and then, finally, Chief Justice John Roberts once again temporarily allowed their firings last week.
The NLRB’s and MSPB’s responsibilities include enforcing labor laws and vetting federal workplace complaints, which Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court was too much power for boards to wield independently of the president.
Sauer argued in his emergency request to the high court that presidents, therefore, should have the ability to fire members of the two boards without cause, despite Congress restricting it.
Sauer said the case raised “profound” questions, alluding to Trump’s march toward asking the Supreme Court to revisit Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States, a landmark decision issued in 1935 upholding the independence of certain agencies like the two in question.
SUPREME COURT TEMPORARILY ALLOWS FIRINGS OF TWO INDEPENDENT AGENCY APPOINTEES
“This case raises a constitutional question of profound importance: whether the President can supervise and control agency heads who exercise vast executive power on the President’s behalf, or whether Congress may insulate those agency heads from presidential control by preventing the President from removing them at will,” Sauer wrote.
Roberts responded to Sauer’s argument by granting the administrative stay that temporarily permitted Wilcox’s and Harris’s firings, and he did not provide any time frame for how long the stay would last. But his request for quick responses from the two women signals the high court could move expeditiously.
