Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent
What may be one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most important and far-reaching rulings in decades dropped in late May 2025 in an order that probably didn't get a second – or even first – glance from most Americans.
But this not-quite-two-page ruling, as technical and procedural as they come, potentially rewrites a major principle of constitutional law and may restructure the operation of the federal government.
The case is dry in a way only lawyers could love, but its implications are enormous.
The dispute began when President Donald Trump fired two Biden-era officials: Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, like the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Reserve, are among more than 50 independent agencies established by Congress to help the president carry out the law. Though technically located within the executive branch, independent agencies are designed to serve the public at large rather than the president.
To ensure these agencies are devoted to their public mission, not the will or whims of a president, congressional statutes generally permit the president to remove leaders of these agencies only for 'good cause.' Malfeasance in office, neglect of duty, or inefficiency generally constitute 'good cause.'
Other executive branch agencies, such as the FBI, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Homeland Security are entirely under presidential command – if he wants their leaders out, out they go. But independent agencies, in existence since the late 19th century, are to carry out congressional policy free from the president's purview and his political pressure.
Because independent agencies are creatures of Congress housed within the executive branch, there is long-standing disagreement among scholars about just how much power the president should have over them.
In the two firings, there was agreement that Trump had violated the relevant statute by firing Wilcox and Harris without 'good cause.'
He justified Wilcox's removal, in part, because she did not share his policy preferences. For Harris, he gave no reason at all.
But the bigger issue was whether the law itself was constitutional: Could Congress limit why or how a president can remove employees of the executive branch?
The root of the problem lies within the Constitution. Although Article 2 specifically gives the president the power to 'appoint' certain federal officials, it says nothing about the power to fire -– or 'remove' – them.
Conservative legal scholars propose, under what's called the 'unitary executive theory,' that because the president 'is' the executive branch, he has complete authority, including removal, over all who serve within it. Only with the unfettered ability to fire anyone who serves under him can the president fulfill his constitutionally mandated duty to ensure that 'the Laws be faithfully executed.'
Opponents have countered that this ignores fundamental aspects of our constitutional framework: the framers' devotion to checks and balances, their aversion toward monarchical, kinglike rule, and their determination to put policymaking in the hands of Congress.
These questions are not new.
The Supreme Court first took up the issue in 1926 in Myers v. United States, when Chief Justice – and former president – William Howard Taft held that Congress could not limit the president's ability to fire an Oregon postmaster, writing that 'the power to remove inferior executive officers … is an incident of the power to appoint them.'
Less than a decade later, however, the court ruled in Humphrey's Executor v. United States that the Constitution did not grant the president an 'illimitable power of removal,' at least over certain types of officials. This included the head of the Federal Trade Commission, whose firing by President Franklin Roosevelt had sparked the case.
Humphrey's Executor stood basically untouched for decades, until Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito – both of whom had previously served in the executive branch – were appointed.
With a now-solid conservative majority, the Supreme Court invalidated restrictions on the president's ability to remove members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in 2009.
Two years after the arrival of fellow executive branch alumnus Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, the court struck down the 'good cause' removal restriction for the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Rather than explicitly overrule Humphrey's Executor, however, the justices declared that these agencies were factually distinct from the Federal Trade Commission – leaders of one were protected by a 'two-layer' removal system and the other because it was run by a single individual, not a multimember board.
Because Humphrey's Executor was still good law, and the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board were structured like the Federal Trade Commission, district courts in 2025 initially held that the firings of Wilcox and Harris were unlawful.
On April 9, 2025, Trump filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, asking it to put the district court decisions on hold. On May 22, the Supreme Court granted that request, at least while the cases proceed through the lower courts.
The court did not decide on the constitutionality of the removal statute, but the ruling is nonetheless a major victory for Trump. He can now fire not only Wilcox and Harris but also potentially the heads of any independent agency. Low-level civil servants may also be at risk.
In the unsigned order, the high court echoed unitary executive theory, stating, 'Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the Presidents … he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions.' It simply ignored Humphrey's Executor altogether, leaving its value as precedent unclear.
The Supreme Court also said that the holding did not apply to the Federal Reserve Board. That 'uniquely structured, quasi-private entity' would remain free from executive control via removal.
Such an explicit carve-out in legal doctrine is striking but responds directly to claims made by litigants and political commentators of the dire economic consequences that could result were the president to have free rein over the Federal Reserve's chairman.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan blasted the majority for allowing the president to overrule Humphrey's Executor 'by fiat,' a result made even worse because the court had done so via the so-called shadow docket, in the absence of full briefing or oral argument. Such 'short-circuiting' of the 'usual deliberative process' is, she wrote, a wholly inappropriate way to make a 'massive change in the law.'
What happens now?
The National Labor Relations Board is paralyzed, and the Merit Systems Protection Board is somewhat hamstrung, with both lacking the quorum necessary to act. Cases about the firing of Harris, Wilcox and multiple other officials will bedevil lower courts as they try to figure out whether Humphrey's Executor still stands, even as a shadow of its former self.
Trump aims to continue axing federal employees, even as the administration struggles to rehire others.
And, already asked again to make major legal change on its emergency docket, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether such change warrants more than the few paragraphs of explanation it gave in the ruling on the Wilcox and Harris firings.
If, as seems likely, the court ultimately overturns Humphrey's Executor, Kagan's dissent serves as a warning voiced by others as well: A decision that allows the president to have total control over the heads of more than 50 independent agencies – agencies that pursue the public interest in areas from financial regulation to the environment, to nuclear safety – could shift their focus from serving the public to pleasing the president, profoundly affecting the lives of many Americans.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Claire B. Wofford, College of Charleston
Read more:
Trump's claims of vast presidential powers run up against Article 2 of the Constitution and exceed previous presidents' power grabs
Federal threats against local officials who don't cooperate with immigration orders could be unconstitutional − Justice Antonin Scalia ruled against similar plans
George Washington, a real estate investor and successful entrepreneur, knew the difference between running a business and running the government
In 2022, I donated $20 to ActBlue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth says ‘Iran has a choice,' US not seeking regime change
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday morning that Iran faces a choice between a negotiated settlement or an escalating conflict with the U.S. after strikes hit three nuclear sites in the country on Saturday. 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon along with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine. 'And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities,' he added. Caine said the damage assessment was ongoing but that all three nuclear sites targeted in the strikes sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' Trump on Saturday said the facilities had been 'obliterated.' Iran signaled little interest in diplomacy in the hours after the strikes, dubbed as Operation Midnight Hammer. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Hegseth said Saturday's strikes were limited in scope, but pointed to President Trump's warning on Truth Social that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' The Pentagon chief said the operation was 'not and has not been about regime change' in Iran. He said it had set back Iran's nuclear timeline. Caine also provided new details about the operation during Sunday's briefing, which he called the largest B-2 bomber operation in history. He said the U.S. dropped 75 guided weapons on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear enrichment and research sites. This included 14 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, the first operational use of the weapon, and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, he said. A total of 125 aircraft were involved in the mission. The B-2 bombers involved in the operation flew 37 hours non-stop from their base in Missouri, refueling in the air. Caine said that a group of the bombers had been deployed west over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy. The weapons were dropped in a window from 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Trump announced the strike via a Truth Social post about 45 minutes later. The American forces appear to have gone undetected in Iranian airspace. Caine said no shots were fired at American aircraft, nor did Iran's missile defense system notice them. 'Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise,' he said. Hegseth said Congress was only notified of the attacks after warplanes had dropped their payload and exited Iranian airspace. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle accused the administration of violating the Constitution, which requires congressional approval before entering foreign wars. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted as the news broke. Massie sponsored a House resolution earlier this week to require Congressional authorization for any strike in Iran. Vice President Vance, a veteran and frequent skeptic of foreign intervention, congratulated the troops and others involved in the strike on Sunday morning. 'I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program,' said in an interview on ABC News.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Greene: ‘Let's pray that we are not attacked by terrorists'
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) called for prayers after President Trump announced strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites late Saturday, adding that she hopes the U.S. is not 'attacked by terrorists.' 'Let us join together and pray for the safety of our U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East,' she wrote on social media platform X after Trump's announcement. 'Let us pray that we are not attacked by terrorists on our homeland after our border was open for the past 4 years and over 2 Million gotaways came in,' she added. 'Let us pray for peace.' Her statement comes after the U.S. targeted three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain in Iran. Six 'bunker buster' bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, while more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles were launched at the other two sites. Greene has been a notable critic of U.S. involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel, saying that she backed Trump because he would not involve the nation in foreign conflicts. 'Everyone is finding out who are real America First/MAGA and who were fake and just said it (because) it was popular,' Greene wrote in a 355-word post on the social platform X last week. 'Unfortunately the list of fakes are becoming quite long and exposed themselves quickly.' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) quickly shot down Greene's criticism, instead saying that she 'doesn't understand' the nuclear threat that Iran poses. 'If you don't understand that Iran, a religious theocracy, religious Nazis would use a nuclear weapon to kill all the Jews, you don't listen to what they say,' Graham said. 'They're a threat to us. They're a threat to the State of Israel. It is not in the world's interest to give this religious fanatic a nuclear weapon.' Greene isn't alone in her stance, as the issue is generating a significant split in MAGA-world. Still, many Republicans praised the strikes on Iran, which had become a hot-button debate in Washington, especially among the GOP. They came after Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month in what it called a 'pre-emptive' attack.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
