Trump Battles Deep State, Takes Case to Supreme Court

White building with large columns and sculptures outside

President Trump scores a temporary victory at the Supreme Court in his battle to reassert constitutional authority over government agencies and officials who oppose his administration’s policy objectives.

Quick Takes

Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay allowing President Trump to remove two Biden-appointed board members from independent agencies
The case challenges a 1935 Supreme Court decision (Humphrey’s Executor) that limits presidential power to fire independent board members
The administration argues that requiring a president to delegate power to officials who oppose his policies violates constitutional separation of powers
Affected agencies include the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, both critical to implementing Trump’s agenda
The Supreme Court could deliver a landmark ruling on presidential authority by July if it grants the administration’s request for expedited review

Presidential Authority vs. Independent Agencies

In a significant development for executive power, Chief Justice John Roberts has paused a lower court ruling that would have forced President Trump to keep two Biden-appointed officials in their positions at independent federal agencies. The temporary stay allows the administration to proceed with removing Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board while the Supreme Court considers the broader constitutional questions at stake. Both officials were appointed during the Biden administration, with Wilcox being notably the first Black woman to serve on the NLRB and having been confirmed for a second term just months before Trump took office.

The case centers on the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which has long limited presidential authority to fire independent agency officials without cause. Conservative legal scholars have criticized this precedent for decades, arguing it improperly constrains the constitutional powers of the executive branch. President Trump’s administration is now directly challenging this limitation, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer arguing that the current situation “causes grave and irreparable harm to the President and to our Constitution’s system of separated powers.”

Trump vs. the Constitution: The Legal and Institutional Challenges of an Unconstrained Presidency

The second Trump administration presents a fundamental test for the resilience of the American constitutional system. With his return to power, the legal and institutional…

— Niels Groeneveld (@nigroeneveld) March 10, 2025

Implications for Federal Agency Control

The removal of these officials has immediate practical consequences for the administration’s ability to implement its policy agenda. After Wilcox’s firing, the NLRB lacked a quorum to decide labor cases, effectively halting its operations. The Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews federal worker disputes, plays a crucial role in any potential workforce reduction efforts – a key component of Trump’s government reform plans. The administration has made it clear that control over these agencies is essential to executing presidential priorities and argues that Congress cannot insulate agency heads from presidential control through removal restrictions.

“The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day—much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated in court filings.

In response, attorneys for Wilcox argue that her firing lacked due process and was not justified by neglect or malfeasance, conditions typically required for removal of independent agency officials. They contend that the Supreme Court review represents the “only path to victory” for their client. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had previously voted to reinstate both Wilcox and Harris while their cases proceed, a decision that prompted the administration’s emergency application to the Supreme Court.

Potential Landmark Decision Ahead

The Trump administration has taken the unusual step of requesting the Supreme Court not only to temporarily halt the reinstatements but also to fast-track a full review of the cases. The administration has asked the Court to schedule arguments for a special session in May, with a decision expected by July. This expedited timeline reflects the importance the administration places on resolving this constitutional question quickly. The Supreme Court’s final ruling could potentially reshape the relationship between the presidency and the administrative state for generations to come.

“This case raises a constitutional question of profound importance: whether the President can supervise and control agency heads who exercise vast executive power on the President’s behalf, or whether Congress may insulate those agency heads from presidential control by preventing the President from removing them at will,” wrote Solicitor General Sauer in the administration’s filing.

While acknowledging the challenges of addressing these complex constitutional questions on a compressed timeline, the administration maintains that the principle of presidential authority over the executive branch must be upheld without delay. The Supreme Court’s decision could either reinforce decades-old limitations on presidential power or grant the executive branch significantly more control over the federal bureaucracy, representing a major shift in how government agencies operate in relation to elected leadership.