LEBLANC v. UNITED STATES PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD, 1:25-cv-00542

Plaintiffs, former members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), were removed by the President.
The Court previously found their removal unlawful, granting declaratory and injunctive relief reinstating the plaintiffs.
Defendants (U.S. and PCLOB leadership) requested a stay of the Court’s order pending appeal, arguing potential executive harm if plaintiffs returned.
The PCLOB is a multi-member, non-adjudicatory body with an oversight mission related to privacy and civil liberties.
The core dispute centers on whether PCLOB members are protected from at-will removal by the President, given the Board's statutory structure and functions.
The parties disagree about the Board’s executive power and the correct legal standard for removability and stays.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCLOB members are protected from at-will removal by the President	Board's structure and function show Congress intended removal protections	No express text grants removal protection; Board is not adjudicatory, so can be removed at will	Board members protected from at-will removal by structure and function of statute
Whether the Court erred in finding that the PCLOB lacks significant executive power	PCLOB has only advisory, non-binding authority	PCLOB's access to executive records/personnel and advice functions amount to executive power	PCLOB lacks executive power to bind or compel, so differs from agencies found to exercise considerable executive authority
Whether defendants risk irreparable harm by reinstating plaintiffs	Plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed by inability to serve; Board can’t function effectively without them	Reinstating plaintiffs risks improper exercise of executive power by persons the President removed	No irreparable harm likely to defendants; Board’s powers are advisory only
Whether the balance of equities and public interest favor a stay	Effective oversight and functioning Board in public interest; absence harms privacy/civil liberties	Public interest favors allowing only Presidential appointees to serve, per executive authority	Balance favors plaintiffs; PCLOB’s oversight role is critical and harmed by lack of a quorum

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (standard for stay pending appeal requires strong showing of likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (removal protections lawfully inferred from structure and function; distinguishes single-director from multi-member agencies)
Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U.S. 311 (applies at-will removal where no contrary intent shown; distinguished here as not applicable to multi-member, nonpartisan expert boards)
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (four-part test for stays, including likelihood of success and irreparable harm)