At issue was President Trump’s plenary authority to remove Gwynne Wilcox, a former member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and Cathy A. Harris, the removed chair of the federal Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The NLRB oversees laws protecting workers’ rights and union elections nationwide, while the MSPB defends federal government workers against political discrimination.
The court’s order [READ ORDER HERE] is unsigned; however, it provides dissent from the three DEI appointed justices (lesbian, latina, black), and did not decide the underlying merits of the case, which will continue to play out in the lower courts. Presumably the court alignment was 6-3.
The overall decision is an endorsement of presidential authority to appoint leadership within the executive branch without review. The power of the president is plenary to the Executive Branch. As noted in the opinion, “Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.”
(VIA ABC) – The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Thursday bolstered President Donald Trump’s bid to assume full control of executive branch agencies, giving a green light — for now — to his removal of the heads of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, whom he fired without cause.
A district court had sided with Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board, concluding their firings from their independent agencies were likely illegal and must be reversed.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court granted Trump’s request for a stay of the lower court order to reinstate Harris and Wilcox, at least for now.
“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,” the majority explained.
The dispute is currently working its way through a federal court of appeals and may ultimately return to the Supreme Court on the merits.
Federal law and Supreme Court precedent explicitly prohibits the president from removing the heads of those independent, advisory agencies without cause in most cases — but conservatives and the administration have long argued that the rule is unconstitutional. (read more)
Good win…the larger question is extrapolation.
Will this decision be permitted to be spread like butter over the plethora of lawsuits suing Trump and challenging his authority…
Trump Adminstration will argue we have a new precedent.
This lawyer [me] is hopeful but doubtful.
Precedents will unfold on case by case combat.
We will win some.
We will lose some…
It’s just a ruling on the lower court order that stayed Trump from firing these people, so I doubt it’s precedent.
I do think it might be a hint of where the Court is going on all the Lawfare appeals that have been filling up the Court’s emergency docket.
One hopes that the Court, or at least a majority, is sick of this crap, and will issue a ruling on the broad scope of executive power, and the limits of the authority of the district court judge’s orders that will be precedent.
I think the birthright citizenship case might have been chosen for that reason. Instead of limiting cert to the birthright issue, the Court granted cert to the whole case, and national injunctions got most of the attention at the oral argument.
Oh it is a precedent…
The S.Ct. is setting a precedent on the equity of injunctions…
…now they can parse that out in the next case and the next case but…but:
…this was a signal by the Supremes that a runaway judiciary is not going to be the order of the day.
My guess is that we will see more parsing…some will go our way – some will
not.
The Court does love its precedents. Once established they hang onto them like a dog with a bone. Also with each precedent the Court establishes/grants itself more power, power and authority not granted in the Constitution and as the example in Roe v Wade or the earlier Dred Scott decisions, it takes eternity for the Court to finally relinquish a tiny bit of those stolen authorities.
We are watching the Supreme Court use the lower courts constant nation-wide restraining orders and injunctions to grant itself, the higher court, powers over the Executive Branch the Founding Fathers never imagined the court they established would do. Let this usurpation go on long enough and pretty soon there will be a chief justice on our Supreme Court with the same illusions of grandeur that high court justice in Brazil wields. When that happens we will know our constitutional republic experiment is over.
The Supreme Court when it wants to, when it chooses to, can eviscerate precedent.
They have done so recently in Dobbs and Bruen and others…
There. Is. Hope!
Adhering to precedent is generally a good thing if they correctly decided a case based on the law and not on penumbras and “equity” reasons. Stable precedents provide stable law such that in most cases we can say “the law is…” It’s when we hold onto precedents that were decided on the whim of the majority that we have a problem.
We’ll see.
yeah but scotus better get off their ass and stop the bs asap
The precedent is that he should retain his powers UNTIL a case is decided on the merits AND it restricts his powers.
This was a process decision to vacate the “stay”. Still important.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-walls-off-fed-from-trump-firings-220258175.html
“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
“Quasi-private”? Yeah, right.
That’s both a MADE UP TERM and proof that the Federal Reserve is not “government” and is not at all constitutional.
Trump administration needs to POUNCE on this immediately.
Justice For ALL
Visit the website of McNaughton Fine Art
https://jonmcnaughton.com/
gee, how magnanimous of SCOTUS.
especially since they view themselves as the superseding authority to POTUS.
i guess that co-equal thing is passé ?
Yes. Since Marbury v Madison (1803), the SCOTUS has usurped power from the Executive and Legislative branches under the guise of “judicial review” which is tantamount to Judicial Supremacy. The Constitutional role of the judiciary, i.e. the Supreme Court, is the ultimate arbiter of disputes between parties, not usurping Executive and Legislative power, i.e., Judicial Supremacy.
The cure, historically, and now, is impeachment. Even if not convicted, the impeachment process keeps the rogue judiciary in line and they back off. See, the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase (1804).
The ‘cure’ also can be for the President to ignore unconstitutional rulings from the court. There is nothing..I repeat nothing in the Constitution that grants sole authority to the court as the only branch that may determine what is constitutional. So no reason that either the Executive or legislative branches can make that determination. Theoretically if the President goes rogue he can be impeached. If Congress goes rogue we’ll they are answerable to us folks evert 2 years.. Checks and balances, checks and balances.
This is the money quote:
Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, see Art. II, §1, cl. 1, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents, see Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 215−218 (2020).
The narrow exceptions are:
First, Humphrey’s Executor permitted Congress to give for-cause removal protection to a multimember body of experts who were balanced along partisan lines, appointed to staggered terms, performed only “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial functions,” and were said not to exercise any executive power. Second, Morrison approved for-cause removal protection for an inferior officer—the independent counsel—who had limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority. Pp. 11–16.
“Hey, he has limited, inconsequential duties and no power. You can’t fire him!”
“Oh, he’s that important, eh?”
Executive shall hire and fire at will to build out the Executive Branch.
Period.
But does the Constitution permit two of the branches to delegate power, of any sort, to a “quasi-private” entity, allowing that private group of banks to set short term interest rates for the entire nation while holding a monopoly on the currency of the nation (in violation of the US Constitution’s directives about the national currency) while also setting interest rates for the Treasury at which the Treasury must become further indebted, even though the Treasury could itself just print as much currency as it needs to, without any borrowing?
i.e. the Fed
And why exactly did the court feel it needed to go out of its way to indicate POTUS can’t fire Powell?
And why exactly did the court feel it needed to go out of its way to indicate POTUS can’t fire Powell?
Because Roberts wrote the opinion?
Delegating is rewriting the Constitution. The duties are defined; do them and only them.
If I was Roberts, I would be very careful about what I do. PDJT is not F’ng around this time.
If some “body of experts” performs only “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” functions and they have no executive authority or functions, then why are they under the executive branch in the first place? But if these “experts” are in fact performing any duties that are related only to the executive branch Article II functions, then it would seem to fall under the President’s authority and he should be able to remove them. Or am I missing something?
And the business about for-cause removal protections is nonsense. The federal government should adopt the same kind of at-will employment standards found in many State governments and in the private sector when it comes to at least managerial employees and professionals, like attorneys and engineers. The federal government is far too bloated to have so many employees protected from consequences for incompetence or non-performance. Of course, the entire federal civil service system needs to be reformed, if not scrapped.
You’re not missing anything. The court is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
Trump could claim quasi-judicial powers himself, you know, and it would be in conformance with that logic.
Alternative Headline: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 (Pathetic) That The Unitary Executive (per The US Constitution) is The Unitary Executive. Film at 11:00 …
Two more agencies targeted for DOGE elimination. Go Trump.
Yea, the real answer is everyone loses their jobs.
Yes, it was 6-3. Kagan wrote the dissent, which is considerably longer than the majority opinion. Guess who the other two dissenters were…
“Wise” Latina and Cousin It?
This has never been an issue before to my knowledge. One of the most important functions of the NLRB is working within the Railway Labor Act. That Act regulates unions that work in critical infrastructure, railroads and airlines are two main sectors. Anytime a union is at an impasse during CBA negotiations, the union must be released by the NLRB for them to legally strike. If not formally released, union principals can be arrested and charged.
Any plans the left had on using members of the NLRB to approve formal strikes to paralyze infrastructure have now been ended, IMO.
It’s only an issue when someone with the last name Trump is in office.
So now they recognise the Constitution?
BUT
What does the last part of this sentence mean?
“subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents?
““Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.”
So if precedents have found for those fired, does it mean this order is temporary/wont be applied in further cases?
Executive power invested by the constitution in the president REMAINS EXECUTIVE POWER.
“subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents?
See post above on Humphrey and Morrison
This order only applies to these two boards and the parties involved. But the Court may use the same reasoning in another case that will apply to all pending executive power cases.
It’s all about the Fed.
That was the elephant in the room the whole time.
I presume the markets will be up strongly tomorrow as a result.
But . . .
(Thanks Scavino . . . )
Enter Sandman?
Minute 5 – Operation Sandman
“Too late” Powell?
Trump at top cryptoholders private meeting?
Fort Knox still unaudited?
It’s not over just yet.
What a joke of a Supreme Court. Apologies to the women out there but 4 wacko women judges and a coward Chief.
Given his record, it seems the only balls the Chief has are ovarian.
As a woman, I would appreciate a strong and intelligent woman on the court. Roberts nor the four females fit that bill.
I still pine for a court led by Clarence Thomas.
Would assume this should apply to every case being litigated related to the firing or dismissal of ANY Executive Branch appointee —- that is, the President retains the power to fire until such a time as a case is resolved ON THE MERITS in a way that restricts or prohibits him from exercising his plenary powers under Article 2.
Still don’t trust this court. There are several who rule by the Constitution, but there is too much variability when you analyze the covey.
“lesbian, latina, black”
YES!!!!!
only surprise……karen didn’t vote w them
Where does that leave ACB.
Cry harder, Squiberals.
The real problem is the Supreme Court led by John Roberts. They should, but won’t, tell these lower courts to cut this BS out, which if they did would stop all of this nonsense. Roberts is to blame for all of this.
Justice Roberts is part of Lawfare and what he is doing has been called Judicial Supremacy by someone at the Federalist. He is purposefully letting all these TROs run through the appeals process which acts like an anchor on President Trump’s MAGA agenda momentum! I’m beginning to wonder if after what the Supreme Corrupt Court did to allow the massively fraudulent 2020 election go forward because no one had standing so evidence was never presented in any Federal court perhaps the Federalist is wrong. It seems the Supreme Corrupt Court only challenged demented Joe Biden on college loan forgiveness which Joe in his demented state just ignored or perhaps couldn’t remember? Yet none or very few of the Biden EOs autopenned were challenged in any Federal District Court but all of President Trump’s hand signed EOs have been! So perhaps what we’re experiencing is really Leftist Supremacy in all matters Judicial and in the media? Just wondering? JMO
Well stated.
Roberts’ children are adults now. Just saying. 😏
“The purpose of . . . interim equitable relief is not to conclusively determine the rights of the parties, but to balance the equities as the litigation moves forward.” (citation omitted)). A stay is appropriate to avoid the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation. “
—————-
I hope SCOTUS can either promulgate this as some sort of blanket or have the stamina to repeat it over and over again, as I fear the challenges will be ongoing for the next few years.
I believe there is a similar challenge going on with the USIP board.
As much as I’m glad to see the justices actually make a judicial, as opposed to activist, decision, I’m beginning to feel Supreme Court fatigue. They are allowing this sniping from the lesser courts to continue far past the point where it should have been reined in.
J
Sotomayor and Kagen are real dogs who have lowered the beauty quotient of the Court significantly.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Thursday bolstered President Donald Trump’s bid to assume full control of executive branch agencies,
That line tells me how ignorant the media is. Full control? It’s article II you impotent clowns!
The power in traditional media lies with the editor (similar to judicial review?). Everything allowed in print or broadcast is approved or not done. The only real journalism done is independent and published through the internet. Try that in traditional journalism and you’re done in the traditional industry.
The SCOTUS has already ruled a few years ago in prior cases concerning other so-called independent agencies, that they fall under the Executive branch. This ruling just reiterates those rulings and yes, Humphrey’s Executor is going to be overruled as unconstitutional at some point, probably when one of these current cases gets to them on the merits.
The Constitution provided for 3 branches of government and did not provide for independent agencies. If the 3 liberals had their way, these agencies would forever be unaccountable to any elected official, which is what they think these agencies are currently. These agencies perform Executive branch functions, and as such the plenary powers of the President must control them.
When Humphrey’s Executor is overruled as unconstitutional, that will be the end of the administrative state.
This article gives a history of these so-called independent agencies and the court cases involving them. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/the-end-of-independent-agencies-restoring-presidential-control-of-the-executive-branch
Why is it so hard for you to say the word ‘jew’? Kagan is first and foremost a jew, which defines her bias in judgment much more than her perverted sexual orientation.
Because the point is D I E. For the past several years, DIE has been the focus of all hiring and appointments.
religion has not been a part of DIE hiring/appointments.
so being jewish is not relevant to DIE.
Pardon me but the weeds are getting higher. Seems there was a previous ruling that the president could do pretty much anything he wants then out comes the godhead judges.
The number of politically m obviated lower courts that are impeding the President’s and administration’s right to enact the policies that the majority of American voters wanted, is truly appalling. The ACLU (along with CREW/Eisen, etc.) are court shopping to bring their cases into favorable courts, where they are assured that the administration’s decisions will be impeded with injections, temporary restraining orders, etc. Currently there is another case where a judge has ‘ordered’ the administration to return 5 deported illegals with serious criminal sentences, BACK into the US. This is beyond absurd. And something needs to be done to end this Lawfare.
SCOTUS. Keep your eye on Judge James Ho, who some feel may be next in line for SCOTUS. Hopefully. Just for your ‘enjoyment’, here is Judge Ho’s ‘concurrence’ to the recent SCOTUS aberration, where SCOTUS has ruled against the Trump administration. It’s blazingly excellent: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV0.pdf
He is supposedly on the short list for the next SCOTUS vacancy.
As long he is not endorsed by the Federalist Society.
What is this “conservative majority” in the Supreme Court that ABC writes of? I’m mildly shocked that socialist-lite Roberts and the hugely disappointing Barrett decided in favor of something that benefits PDJT47.
We have allowed the courts and non-elected, politically motivated judges to usurp the power of the Executive Branch. May I suggest you read and comment on my Substack post:
https://alfrancis.substack.com/p/vigilante-justice?r=1nbcvc
Why can’t we(Trump supporters) go judge shopping and get a nation wide injunction against the left’s nation wide injunctions. Sorry if this is a dumb question but it seems to me we have more valid standing than what I’ve seen from these lower district state courts.
“did not decide the underlying merits of the case, which will continue to play out in the lower courts”
Of course not. That’s as a compromised SCOTUS desires.
A helpful SCOTUS ruling to stop the judicial coup isn’t really necessary.
Most of the judicial coup could be stopped by simply ENFORCING compliance with THE RULES.
As with most things political in the US, this is yet another FARCE.
Dan Huff
@RealDanHuff
Feb 10 2025
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1888975398299435477.html
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used!
When I was in the White House, in Trump’s first term, I suggested this, but DOJ didn’t make it happen. [Golly, I wonder why… – W] Imagine if we had applied this to the travel ban – activists would think twice before blocking policies with potentially billions at stake.
For national injunctions, we’re talking bonds in the hundreds of millions or even billions. It will become prohibitive unless the activists have a slam dunk case.
Note that Karl Denninger is NOT even a lawyer.
So Where Are The Filings?
Karl Denninger
8 Mar 2025
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=252937
Trump’s Administration has finally taken notice of Rule 65(c) when it comes to Federal Courts:
(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.
This is not discretionary and the court cannot assess a “de-minimus” security amount either; it must be defensible predicated on the costs and damages that the other party may or will suffer with the evidence of same in the order itself if the injunction or TRO issues until disposition of the case and the posting of said security has to be completed before the TRO or injunction is valid.
[snip]
Thus where is Pam Bondi with immediate emergency filings against all of the existing injunctions already issued demanding that security be posted up and computed in said public filing and, if there is any delay or refusal by the judges involved to do so taking an immediate emergency appeal as far as necessary including to the Supreme Court which, given the actual language in the Rules of Civil Procedure is a slam-dunk and immediate win? No, demanding this only on a forward basis for future filings is not enough — force the movants in all the existing injunctions to either post up security or dissolve the injunctions and TROs.
Answer, because they’re not being forced to:
Why are Judges Issuing Nationwide Injunctions Without Collecting the Bonds Required to Do So? (5:52)
Rep. Harriet Hageman
1 Apr 2025
Who is going to force them? Who to enforce? Laws that are not enforced are not laws, just good ideas.
“Humphrey’s undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control“
Put more succinctly, Humphrey’s helped establish the modern administrative state which is untethered from democratic governance.
Humphrey’s replaces government of, by, and for the people with of, by, and for the state.
The beauty of Trump 2.0 is that he represents the dismantling of the administrative state. It’s a dismantling of 100+ years of the Progressive Project.
Rule by experts and rule by “But…science!” has failed. Budgets run amok, failed wars, insubordinate government employees, pointless lockdowns, masks, and fake vaccines, and elections that grew increasingly meaningless illustrate the failure of the Expert Government.
Although the ruling sends it back to the lower courts, it sends it back with instructions.
They could have said “reinstating isn’t appropriate while the appeals play out”. But they went further and puts curbs in the road basically telling the lower courts how this is likely to play out. So don’t bother trying novel new arguments.
I submit that the laws passed and signed that created those agencies, violated Article II of the Constitution. Therefore, they are invalid in the shadow of a President who has the courage and the fortitude to stand and declare. The President took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That oath is not fulfilled by condescening to Article III courts who have no Constitutional jurisdiction.
So far the remedy has been to let the executive have its way.
How this will be addressed in relation to the federal reserve is another matter. Previously, the Trump administration brought the federal reserve under “Treasury.” But now SCOTUS is calling it a private company. There is NO SUCH THING as a pseudo private entity. Once again, as in the case of “Obamacare is a tax” SCOTUS in creating fictions to preserve the illegal status quo.
he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.
The money line. Their nose is already in the tent. Precedents.
Some of the posters here have noted that FRCP 65(c) requires that the plaintiff seeking an injunction in federal court post a bond:
(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.
The Lawfare plaintiffs have not been doing this, and the Democratic judges have not been requiring it.
Tucked into the Big, Beautiful Bill is a provision that states:
“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued.”
https://www.newsweek.com/hidden-provision-trump-bill-court-2075769
So presumably if Trump were to disregard these injunctions, the judge would not be able to find the administration in contempt unless the judge had first required a bond. It applies to all injunctions and TROs.
How’s this a thing? I do not understand. The constitution is clear and simple. This is the issue with lawyers, they view everything through the lenses of covering their rear ends. This isn’t brain science. Per the constitution: if the head of the executive branch commits high crimes and misdemeanors, because he’s a tyrant, there’s a process for that. It’s called IMPEACHMENT. If that tyrant doesn’t get convicted in the senate, there’s a fail safe for that, it’s called PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. The framework is for THE PEOPLE’S WILL to decide the direction of the country not for a few bureaucrats to decide. Period.
Why are there any exceptions to this plenary power?
Good point. I hope that a case on executive power that reaches the Court on the merits opens the possibility of Humphrey’s Executor going the way of Chevron.
District Judge Rudolph Contraras was the judge who made the initial ruling that Trump couldn’t fire them. The first time I heard of Contraras was of FISA 702 fame.
Just not that enchanted by several of the Supreme decisions, but occasionally, some do remember we have Separation of Powers.
BTW, not that I care but which one of them is the lesbian. I know my colors, but it’s not obvious, other than all three are stone cold libs.
Ms. Kagan.
The Constitution establishes three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. When Congress establishes agencies with executive powers and functions that are independent of the constitutional executive branch, it is effectively ameding the Constitution to create a fourth branch of government, and doing it outside the formal process for Constitutional amendments. This cannot be permitted to stand.
This legislative amending arises out of a false theory of American government. Somewhere there is a video of then-Speaker Pelosi explaining that the House of Representatives is the “Peoples’ House,” that it is the “superior” branch of government, and that it supercedes all the rest. I know, the House isn’t a branch by itself, but we’ll let that go for the moment. If you view your branch as the “superior” branch, it is a short hop to also thinking that your branch has the power to create independent agencies with executive powers that do not answer to and are not controlled by the President, in effect creating agencies that act as a FOURTH branch of government, and doing so without going through the constitutional amendment process to establish them.
Of course this view of American government is complete nonsense. Unfortunately, too many seem to believe it. It is also LONG past time for the Supreme Court to put an end to it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-claims-congress-is-a-superior-branch-of-government
dissent from the sista’s.🦨
How magnanimous of them, being a different branch from the executive.
Personally, I believe that they have no standing whatsoever to even opine on this subject.