Supreme Court allows Trump to fire independent agency members

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that, for now, President Donald Trump is not required to reinstate two members of independent federal agencies he wants to fire.

The provisional decision affects Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued an order that temporarily blocked lower court rulings that said the two officials should be reinstated.

The court will decide what next steps to take in the case after hearing from lawyers for the two ousted officials.

Follow live politics coverage here

Although the Supreme Court previously upheld protections against members of independent agencies being removed without cause, the current conservative majority has reversed course in recent cases affecting other agencies.

Wilcox was appointed to the body that adjudicates labor disputes by then-President Joe Biden in 2021. Her five-year term would have expired in 2026. Under federal law, the president can only fire members "for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."

Biden appointed Harris in 2022 to a seven-year term that has similar protections against removal. The Merit Systems Protection Board handles disputes involving federal employees.

Trump sought to fire both soon after taking office.

Wilcox and Harris both sued and won at the district court level. An appeals court panel initially ruled for Trump but, in a later ruling in which the entire bench of judges participated, reversed course in a 7-4 vote, prompting the administration to go to the Supreme Court.

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe Data Dive: Steve Kornacki on why 2026 isn’t like 2018

FOR SUBSCRIBERSWhy a wave of ‘cockroach’ protesters are defying India’s bid to stamp out their movement

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe American consumer keeps spending. How much longer can it last?

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAttack on Saudi airport dials up pressure on D.C.

FOR SUBSCRIBERSRepublican attempts to trip up James Talarico keep backfiring

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAnother Hormuz? What to know about the Houthi threat to the Red Sea

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP ad buyer mixes up Portlands, spends money meant to help Maine Sen. Susan Collins in Oregon

FOR SUBSCRIBERSJane Doe’s night started with catching up. It ended with a frat party that changed everything.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS‘Trump never cared about us’: Ukraine smarts at U.S. pressure and deal with Putin

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFacing smaller crowds and low approval ratings, Trump tries to rally the base

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAcross both parties, Black candidates look to make history in governor’s races

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAbortion isn’t top of mind for voters, but Democrats are betting it could motivate their base

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFlock ‘false flags’ lead to frightening motorist encounters with police

FOR SUBSCRIBERSInside one country’s ambitious campaign to plant 50 billion trees

FOR SUBSCRIBERSOne year on, Gaza ceasefire exists ‘in name only,’ aid groups say amid near-daily Israeli strikes

Slide 1 of 1

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe Data Dive: Steve Kornacki on why 2026 isn’t like 2018

FOR SUBSCRIBERSWhy a wave of ‘cockroach’ protesters are defying India’s bid to stamp out their movement

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe American consumer keeps spending. How much longer can it last?

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAttack on Saudi airport dials up pressure on D.C.

FOR SUBSCRIBERSRepublican attempts to trip up James Talarico keep backfiring

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAnother Hormuz? What to know about the Houthi threat to the Red Sea

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP ad buyer mixes up Portlands, spends money meant to help Maine Sen. Susan Collins in Oregon

FOR SUBSCRIBERSJane Doe’s night started with catching up. It ended with a frat party that changed everything.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS‘Trump never cared about us’: Ukraine smarts at U.S. pressure and deal with Putin

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFacing smaller crowds and low approval ratings, Trump tries to rally the base

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAcross both parties, Black candidates look to make history in governor’s races

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAbortion isn’t top of mind for voters, but Democrats are betting it could motivate their base

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFlock ‘false flags’ lead to frightening motorist encounters with police

FOR SUBSCRIBERSInside one country’s ambitious campaign to plant 50 billion trees

FOR SUBSCRIBERSOne year on, Gaza ceasefire exists ‘in name only,’ aid groups say amid near-daily Israeli strikes

Slide 1 of 1

In recent rulings, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has ruled that provisions protecting single heads of independent agencies were unconstitutional. But a 1935 precedent that upheld the structure of multimember agencies remains on the books.

Conservative lawyers who favor broad presidential power have long argued that independent agencies are not sufficiently accountable to the democratically elected president under the Constitution's separation of powers provision. The president should be able to fire agency heads at will, they argue.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers that, because of the lower court rulings, Wilcox and Harris are effectively "exercising the president's executive power over the president's express objection."

Lurking in the background of any effort to overturn the 1935 ruling, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, is whether the president would have the power to fire members of the Federal Reserve, which traditionally operates independently of the White House.