WILCOX v. TRUMP
1:25-cv-00334
| D.D.C. | Mar 8, 2025Background
- Gwynne A. Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was removed from office by President Donald J. Trump without adherence to statutory removal procedures.
- Wilcox challenged the legality of her removal, citing violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which provides for for-cause removal protections.
- The court granted Wilcox’s motion for summary judgment, declared the termination unlawful, and ordered her reinstatement as an NLRB member with all relevant access and benefits.
- Defendants (Trump and NLRB Chair Marvin E. Kaplan) sought a stay of the order pending appeal.
- The stay request was opposed by Wilcox and considered by the court under the traditional four-factor test for stays pending appeal.
- The court denied the requested stay, finding the defendants failed to show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or that the public interest weighed in their favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of Wilcox’s Removal | President violated NLRA by not following for-cause and procedural steps | Presidential removal was lawful; challenged constitutionality of NLRA’s removal restrictions | Removal violated NLRA and was null/void |
| Authority to Stay Reinstatement | Relief necessary for Wilcox to fulfill her duties and for NLRB function | Stay warranted pending appeal; relied on analogies to single-director agencies | No stay; likelihood of success not met |
| Precedential Impact | Humphrey’s Executor controls; NLRB is a multimember body | Supreme Court precedent might be overturned; cited single-head agency cases | Court bound by existing precedent |
| Harm Analysis | Wilcox and public harmed by removal, blocking NLRB function | No irreparable harm to government from reinstatement | Harm to plaintiff/public tipped scale against stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (establishes protections for members of multimember independent agencies)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (sets standard for granting a stay pending appeal)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (articulates four-factor standard for stays pending appeal)
- Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 904 F.3d 1014 (discusses likelihood of success standard for stays)
- Meta Platforms, Inc. v. FTC, 723 F. Supp. 3d 64 (federal courts must follow binding precedent until the Supreme Court overrules it)