D.C. Appeals Court Blocks Trump From Firing NLRB, MSPB Employees
“In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), and Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld removal restrictions for government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked President Donald Trump from firing employees of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The firings of Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox will likely go to the Supreme Court.
The en banc ruling, meaning the full court, voted 7-4.
The ruling vacated a previous ruling from the same court, but only three judges participated in the hearing.
Trump fired Harris and Wilcox in February.
“Upon consideration of the petitions for hearing en banc, which include motions for en banc reconsideration and vacatur of the court’s March 28, 2025 order granting the government’s motions for a stay pending appeal, and the combined opposition thereto, which includes a request for a 7-day stay if the motions are granted, it is ORDERED that the motions for en banc reconsideration and vacatur be granted and the government’s motions for a stay pending appeal be denied,” wrote the court.
The court evoked two Supreme Court decisions for its ruling:
In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), and Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld removal restrictions for government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards. While two laws governing removal restrictions for single heads of agencies exercising executive policymaking and enforcement powers have been held unconstitutional, see Seila Law v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197 (2020); Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021), the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it was not overturning the precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor and Wiener for multimember adjudicatory bodies. Instead, the Supreme Court has, in its own words, left that precedent “in place[.]” Seila Law, 591 U.S. at 215 (2020); see id. at 228 (“not revisit[ing] Humphrey’s Executor”); Collins, 594 U.S. at 250–251 (2021) (recognizing that Seila Law did “not revisit [] prior decisions”) (quoting Seila Law, 591 U.S. at 204); see also Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 687 (1988) (in case involving restrictions on removal of an inferior officer, recognizing that Humphrey’s Executor remains good law); see generally Free Enter. Fund v. Public Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 483 (2010) (in case involving multimember board, declining to “reexamine” Humphrey’s Executor); id. at 501 (“[W]e do not * * * take issue with for-cause limitations in general[.]”).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it. If a precedent of the Supreme Court “has direct application in a case,” lower courts “‘should follow the case which directly controls,’” leaving to the Supreme Court “‘the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’” Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122, 136 (2023) (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)). That rule governs “even if the lower court thinks the precedent is in tension with ‘some other line of decisions.’” Mallory, 600 U.S. at 136 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas, 490 U.S. at 484); see also Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997) (“We do not acknowledge, and we do not hold, that other courts should conclude.
Trump cited Seila Law as his justification, too. He claimed “NLRB does not qualify for the exception because it is not balanced on partisan lines and because it exercises executive powers, such as issuing regulations and pursuing enforcement actions in federal court.”
Something tells me Chief Justice John Roberts will cast the tie-breaking vote.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Judges will be the downfall of the USA at this rate. I hate to see our Republic left in the hands of John Roberts.
Dhimmi-crat judges, and, Dhimmi-crats, at-large. Subversive and cancerous fifth columnists, all.
According to the greasy and politically malleable/capricious Chief Justice of the U.S., there is no such thing as a “Dhimmi-crat judge.”
Similar to Israel and Brazil. Color revolution?
It has reached the point where you will see a judge or judges told “No.”
Roberts is seeing this and understands that the actions by these Obama and Biden judges could destroy the judicial branch.
As much as he hates it, he’s going to have to do his job.
So obama and biden are still in power
election interference the legal way
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/04/06/norm-eisen-chief-justice-john-roberts-stayed-with-me-clarence-thomas-is-corrupt/
good read!
Roberts IS a globalist judge
This is not going to turn out well
An outside shot of reversing Humphrey’s Executor but unless there’s 5 votes for Roberts to join to make it into a 6/3 decision…probably not. More likely is a narrow ruling using Seila to purposely sidestep overturning Humphrey’s Executor. In any event I believe the Trump Admin wins but I’ve been wrong before and there’s several squishy Justices who prefer to move slowly, incrementally and gutting Humphrey’s Executor would be a huge step to ending the apparatus of the administrative State.
“DC Appeals Court Blocks Trump…”
Paraphrase by Paula: “Don’t go to the unjust for justice.”
My bet is that Roberts will find a way to deny standing or jurisdiction and thus punt on the whole thing. That seems to be the MO on reigning in the lower courts.
socialism leads to anti americanism
the courts wouldnt even stop the obvious 2020 PA election “laws” that were violated by the PA courts/legislature
This is about as relevant to the Trump presidency as something not the depression was to the Hoover presidency.
The president of Illinois is now attacking Europe demanding reparations over a figment of his imagination.
By the way Tesla is the best selling car in Europe.
Trump seems to want the second great depression and is getting it.
The ONLY relevant issue right now is the tariff.
Does that mean the decades long imposition of tariffs, import bans, import restrictions, currency manipulation, direct/indirect subsidies the rest of world was doing TO US workers didn’t matter?
To call the imposition of US tariffs in response to that history ‘the only issue’ seems like the same sort argument offered up from what Ambassador Kirkpatrick described as the ‘blame ‘America first crowd’.
“The ONLY relevant issue right now is the tariff.”
IOW… “I can only concentrate on one thing at a time!!”
I suggest neither you nor any of the other 12 year old hysterics screeching that the sky is falling have any clue as to what the future holds in re: the tariffs. (Please, PLEASE mention Smoot-Hawley)
The status quo has not been kind to working class America, and our overheated stock market will have to get accustomed to the lack of government vapor money that has been pumped in over the last 5 years.
Unless you believe inflating our way out of trillions of dollars of debt is the way to go?
It worked well for the Weimer Republic! Oh wait…
Never mine making DC a state. What say we essentially dissolve it. This was proposed by a commented within the last few weeks. I forget who. Reduce the district to the footprint occupied by government buildings and have it administered by congress. Give the rest to Maryland, Oh and dissolve the DC circuit court and reassign its judges to other districts.
Congress, with a majority vote, could limit their jurisdiction or even abolish these lower courts.
I don’t know what people want of this court. There are courts that are overstepping their bounds, but this is not such a case. Under existing Supreme Court precedent the plaintiffs are absolutely right, and Trump has no right to fire them. Each of the cases the government cited explicitly said that they were not overturning the existing precedent, which would continue to be binding. And the lower courts are bound to follow that precedent until the Supreme Court changes it. Even if they think the Supreme Court is likely to change it, which this court almost explicitly said it does expect, they are not allowed to anticipate that change. So what should this court have done? What choice did it have but to rule as it did?