770 F.Supp.3d 166
D.D.C.2025Background
- Susan Tsui Grundmann was appointed to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) by President Biden with Senate confirmation for a term expiring July 1, 2025.
- The FLRA is a bipartisan, independent agency created by Congress to oversee federal labor relations with removal protections for its members; removal is allowed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, and only after notice and a hearing.
- On February 10, 2025, Grundmann was summarily removed from her position by President Trump via email, without notice or a hearing, and no cause was stated.
- Grundmann challenged her removal in the District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the action violated statutory and constitutional separation of powers.
- The government conceded the removal violated the statute but argued the statutory removal protections were unconstitutional as an encroachment on the President's executive power.
- The case was resolved at summary judgment, with both parties cross-moving for judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Grundmann's removal lawful under the FSLMRS? | Removal violated statutory requirements for cause and process. | Removal protection provision is unconstitutional; President has removal power. | Removal violated the statute; cause and procedure required. |
| Constitutionality of statutory for-cause removal | FLRA’s removal protections are constitutional for independent agencies. | Only the President may remove executive officers at will under Article II. | Statutory protections are constitutional under precedent. |
| Availability of relief beyond backpay | Declaratory and injunctive relief are needed to redress the injury. | Only backpay available; other relief impermissibly intrudes on executive. | Declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. |
| Appropriateness of injunctive relief against agency | Court can order agency officials to recognize Grundmann as member. | Relief would effectively control presidential officers; separation of powers. | Injunctive relief appropriate as set out in circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphrey's Ex’r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (removal restrictions for members of independent, quasi-legislative agencies are valid)
- Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197 (limits on the President’s removal power for single-headed independent agencies)
- Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (valid removal protections for commission-type agencies with judicial/adjudicatory function)
- Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (Presidential removal authority; exceptions for some independent agencies)
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (broad executive removal power, with limits recognized in later cases)
- Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (courts can issue declaratory relief against presidential actions)
- Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (courts may order subordinate officials to recognize unlawfully removed members as de facto officials)