In a landmark decision that significantly expands the scope of presidential authority, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump may remove members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) at will, without requiring cause.
The 2-1 decision from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reverses lower-court rulings that had blocked Trump’s attempts to fire members of the key labor and employment panels, including Biden appointees like NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB Chair Cathy Harris. The ruling is a major victory for the administration’s long-standing effort to challenge the independence of federal agencies and consolidate executive power.
The Constitutionality of “For-Cause” Removal
The majority opinion, penned by Trump appointees Judges Gregory Katsas and Justin Walker, rests on the principle that the President must have the power to remove executive officers who wield substantial executive power on his behalf.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
The judges cited the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which stated, “Congress may not restrict the President’s ability to remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power.” In that case, the Court found the single director of the CFPB lacked constitutional protection from at-will removal.
The majority determined that the NLRB (which adjudicates private-sector labor disputes and influences federal labor law) and the MSPB (which handles complaints from federal workers with civil service protections) “wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature” and are fundamentally “different from the powers” that were historically deemed independent.
Crucially, the ruling argues that the 90-year-old precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States—which has long protected the heads of certain independent agencies from unilateral removal—does not apply to the NLRB and MSPB. That 1935 case had carved out an exception for agencies that performed merely “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” functions.
“So, Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members,” the majority concluded.
A Warning of Executive Overreach
The decision drew a strongly worded dissent from the third judge on the appellate panel, Biden appointee Florence Pan, who warned that the ruling dramatically increases the President’s authority and threatens the foundation of the administrative state.
“Today, my colleagues make us the first court to strike down the independence of a traditional multimember expert agency,” Pan wrote.
She cautioned that the majority’s reasoning essentially “redefine[s] the type of executive power that must be placed under the exclusive command of the President, and effectively grant him dominion over approximately thirty-three previously independent agencies.” Pan further warned that the determination that the MSPB, which is largely adjudicatory, cannot be independent, “suggests that no agencies can be independent.”
Broad Implications Across Government
The ruling is part of a broader legal effort by the administration to chip away at removal protections for independent agency heads.
The Supreme Court is already set to hear oral arguments on Monday in the case of Trump v. Slaughter, which could determine whether the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—the very agency at the center of the Humphrey’s Executor precedent—is likewise subject to at-will removal, potentially overturning the landmark 1935 ruling altogether.
The D.C. Circuit majority explicitly noted that its opinion does “not address whether Congress may restrict the President’s ability to remove members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.” However, the ruling highlights the ongoing legal battle over the central bank, as the administration is currently challenging the tenure of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, a Biden nominee, while pressuring the Fed to slash U.S. interest rates. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Cook’s case on January 21.
The D.C. Circuit’s decision clears the way for the administration to install its own appointees and fundamentally reshape the policy direction of the NLRB and MSPB. The ultimate breadth of the President’s removal power now hinges on the highly anticipated decisions from the Supreme Court.