Trump v. Wilcox
24A966
SCOTUSMay 22, 2025Background
- President Trump removed members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) without citing the "for-cause" reasons required by federal statute.
- The District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined these removals, ordering that the officers be reinstated.
- The Government applied to the Supreme Court for a stay, seeking to pause the lower court orders while appellate proceedings continue.
- Relevant statutes (29 U.S.C. §153(a); 5 U.S.C. §1202(d)) only permit removal of these agency members for cause.
- The Supreme Court granted the stay, meaning the President’s removals would go into effect while the case is reviewed further.
- Dissenters argued this action contradicted longstanding precedent upholding limits on presidential removal of independent agency members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the President can remove NLRB/MSPB members without cause | Trump: The President, under Article II, can remove executive officers at will, with limited exceptions. | Wilcox/Harris: Statutes require good cause for removal; Humphrey’s Executor allows Congress to protect independent agency members from at-will removal. | Stay granted; likely the President can remove these officers, subject to final resolution. |
| Applicability of Humphrey's Executor precedent | Trump: Humphrey’s should be reconsidered or narrowed; these agencies exercise executive power and don’t qualify for the exception. | Wilcox/Harris: Humphrey’s directly controls; removal restrictions are constitutional for these independent, bipartisan bodies. | Majority did not decide the issue; left for full merits briefing, but the stay suggests Humphrey’s may not apply. |
| Risk of harm from allowing/removing officers pending appeal | Trump: Letting removed officers serve risks harm by permitting non-executive-aligned officers to wield executive power. | Wilcox/Harris: Greater harm in upending congressional design for independent agencies, undermining public interest. | Court found potential harm to the Government outweighed harm to removed officers. |
| Scope and impact on Federal Reserve and other agencies | Trump: Focused only on NLRB/MSPB, not the Federal Reserve. | Wilcox/Harris: Removal protections at issue underpin many agencies, including the Federal Reserve. | Court expressly excluded the Federal Reserve from the scope of its stay order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (upholds congressional limits on President’s power to remove independent agency members for cause)
- Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) (discusses limits to presidential removal power and exceptions for independent agencies)
- Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958) (reaffirmed Humphrey’s rule for independent administrative agencies)
- Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. 571 (2017) (standards for granting interim equitable relief)
- Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (courts must follow binding precedent unless overruled by the Supreme Court)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (standard for granting stays pending appeal)
- Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301 (1993) (presumption favoring the constitutionality of Acts of Congress when considering interim relief)
- Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 468 U.S. 1323 (1984) (presumption of constitutionality is an equity in stay analysis)