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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY