The recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming former President Trump’s authority to fire two independent agency heads has sent shockwaves through Washington. While this ruling might appear to be a narrow legal skirmish, its implications reach far beyond two individual firings. It’s a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over the separation of powers and the future of America’s independent agencies.

Let’s break down what’s at stake and why this case could reshape the federal government as we know it.

Why This Matters
- Presidential Power Expansion: The court ruled that the president can remove members of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at will, not just for cause. This potentially turns independent agencies into more direct extensions of the executive branch.
- End of Agency Insulation? Historically, independent agencies were designed to buffer against political swings, ensuring expertise and continuity. This decision chips away at those foundations.
- Precedent for Future Administrations: The ruling sets a precedent not just for Trump, but for any future president—Democrat or Republican—seeking to remake the government in their image.
What Most People Miss
- Beyond the Headlines: While much attention is on the MSPB and NLRB, the logic of this ruling could easily be applied to other agencies like the Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, or Securities and Exchange Commission. Are we heading for a politicized Fed?
- The “Humphrey’s Executor” Precedent: The 1935 Supreme Court decision once drew a firm line protecting independent agency heads from at-will firing. With this shift, decades of legal doctrine hang in the balance.
- Expertise vs. Loyalty: Judge Florence Pan’s dissent warns that politics could now trump subject-matter expertise and merit-based decision making in government agencies. If every top official serves at the president’s pleasure, will technical know-how be replaced by political loyalty?
Key Takeaways
- The ruling redefines the balance of power between the president and independent agencies.
- The Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on a similar case, meaning the story isn’t over—yet.
- Potential fallout includes increased politicization, loss of agency independence, and a possible domino effect across the federal government.
Timeline of Events
- Trump fires Cathy Harris (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) after taking office, without cause.
- Lower courts rule for reinstatement, citing “Humphrey’s Executor.”
- The Trump administration appeals; Supreme Court temporarily allows firings to stand.
- D.C. Circuit Court rules 2-1 in Trump’s favor, declaring agency heads can be fired at will.
- Supreme Court will soon hear a related case, potentially setting nationwide precedent.
Pros and Cons Analysis
- Pros:
- Greater executive accountability: The president can directly manage more parts of government.
- Potential for faster administrative change.
- Cons:
- Loss of expertise and continuity: Political turnover could erode agencies’ technical knowledge base.
- Risk of “yes men” appointments, reducing checks and balances.
- Threat to the nonpartisan nature of agencies overseeing critical issues like labor rights and civil service protections.
Expert Commentary
“We may soon be living in a world in which every hiring decision and action by any government agency will be influenced by politics, with little regard for subject-matter expertise, the public good, and merit-based decision-making.” — Judge Florence Pan, dissenting
The Bottom Line
This appeals court decision is about much more than two agency heads—it’s about the future of independent governance in America. As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Will the executive branch gain unprecedented control over the very agencies designed to keep it in check? Or will the traditional barriers between politics and expertise hold firm?












































