{"id":26639,"date":"2025-12-12T13:59:11","date_gmt":"2025-12-12T13:59:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/?p=26639"},"modified":"2025-12-12T13:59:11","modified_gmt":"2025-12-12T13:59:11","slug":"supreme-court-oks-trump-firing-of-independent-agency-officials","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/?p=26639","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court OK\u2019s Trump Firing Of Independent Agency Officials"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\"\"
\u00a0Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

This article may contain commentary
\nwhich reflects the author’s opinion.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to fire two Democrat-appointed agency figures over the dissent of the high court\u2019s three liberal justices.\u00a0The emergency order overturns a lower court ruling that had reinstated the two officials, delivering a victory for the president in his effort to expand authority over all facets of the federal bureaucracy.<\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/div>\n

However, the justices declined the Trump administration\u2019s request to fast-track the case and fully review it this term, postponing a decision on whether the president has the authority to dismiss the two officials permanently.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument,\u201d said the court\u2019s unsigned opinion.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Instead, the challenge brought by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris will proceed through the standard process in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In the meantime, both agencies remain without the quorum needed to carry out certain official functions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,\u201d the court wrote in its opinion.<\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/div>\n

The decision reflects concern over the timeline outlined by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who cautioned that following the standard legal process could delay a final resolution until well into President Trump\u2019s term in office.<\/p>\n

\u201cForcing the President to entrust his executive power to respondents for the months or years that it could take the courts to resolve this litigation would manifestly cause irreparable harm to the President and to the separation of powers,\u201d Sauer wrote in his filings with the high court, The Hill\u00a0noted<\/a><\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Many legal experts believe the case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, which nearly 90 years ago established that Congress could shield certain independent agency officials from being removed without cause.<\/p>\n

In recent years, the Court\u2019s conservative majority has narrowed that protection. Building on those decisions, the Trump administration argues that such safeguards should not apply to members of the NLRB or MSPB\u2014and if the Court disagrees, it should overturn the earlier precedent.<\/p>\n

The case reflects a broader expansionist view of presidential authority, asserting that the president should wield near-total control over the entire Executive Branch, a view held by many conservatives who have argued that\u2019s the vision the founding fathers had when they wrote the Constitution.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,\u201d says Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

In their dissent, the court\u2019s three liberal justices argued that the majority was effectively allowing Trump to override established precedent \u201cby fiat\u201d and described the majority decision as \u201cfavoring the President over our precedent.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThe impatience to get on with things\u2014to now hand the President the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever)\u2014must reveal how that eventual decision will go,\u201d wrote Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration submitted its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after the full D.C. Circuit issued a temporary ruling that effectively reinstated Wilcox and Harris pending the next phase of the case, said The Hill.<\/p>\n

Shortly after taking office, then-President Joe Biden fired scores of Trump appointees to several government-related panels and boards.<\/p>\n

One of them, Roger Severino, who was appointed to the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States shortly before Biden took office, sued the Biden administration over his termination. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit tossed the suit, however,\u00a0ruling<\/a>\u00a0that Biden had the authority as president to fire Servino.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n