The Supreme Court has issued a major emergency ruling granting President Trump the authority, at least temporarily, to remove two Democratic‑appointed officials from independent federal agencies — despite dissent by the Court’s three liberal justices. = The individuals targeted were Gwynne Wilcox (of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB) and Cathy Harris (of the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB). Under statutes governing these agencies, their removal traditionally required “for‑cause” — such as neglect of duty or malfeasance. In 2025, the administration dismissed both without giving cause, prompting legal challenges and temporary court orders restoring them.

On May 22, 2025, the Court granted Trump’s emergency request and issued a stay of the lower‑court reinstatement orders, allowing Wilcox and Harris to remain removed while the litigation continues. The order emphasized that although the Court was not deciding the ultimate question of constitutionality, it found it “likely” that the government would succeed in showing that both NLRB and MSPB “exercise considerable executive power,” justifying presidential removal authority without cause. The Court reasoned that the risk of leaving disputed officers in place — exercising executive powers while their removal remains contested — posed a greater risk of harm than barring them from office during litigation.

Importantly, the Court did not resolve the underlying constitutional and statutory questions. Its order is interim and procedural — allowing the administration to proceed with the removals for now, but directing the case back into the normal appellate process for full briefing and eventual merits determination. The decision thus represents a substantial but not final victory for Trump’s effort to assert broader control over the executive branch — leaving open the possibility that, after argument and deliberation, the Court might still reaffirm or restore the “for‑cause” protections that have governed independent agencies for nearly a century.

The practical consequences of this ruling are immediate and significant. With Wilcox and Harris out, both the NLRB and MSPB lose essential members and face disruptions — including quorum issues that may prevent them from carrying out key functions. The NLRB, for example, has fewer than the full complement of board members, which may handicap its ability to adjudicate labor‑relations disputes. More broadly, the ruling signals to other agencies — and to future presidents — that independent regulatory and adjudicatory bodies may now be vulnerable to executive‑branch control, at least while legal challenges are pending.

Not everyone agreed. The three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — issued a pointed dissent, warning that the Court was willing to override nearly a century of precedent protecting independent agencies simply to accommodate the president’s removal preferences. Kagan wrote that this decision telegraphs how the Court will likely rule ultimately — effectively undermining institutional independence and vesting sweeping power in the president.  Their dissent raises alarm about long-term risks: rollback of checks on presidential power, erosion of regulatory independence, and concentration of authority that could reshape the structure of the administrative state.

This case sits at the center of a broader, high‑stakes confrontation over executive power and the nature of federal governance. The precedent at issue traces back to the 1935 decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, wherein the Court upheld Congress’s authority to insulate members of independent agencies from removal except for cause. In recent years, however — particularly following the conservative majority’s trend in Seila Law v. CFPB — the Court has gradually narrowed those protections. The Wilcox‑Harris case may provide the opportunity for the Court to formally revisit and potentially overturn or further limit Humphrey’s protections — a decision that could reshape the balance between the presidency, Congress, and regulatory agencies for decades to come.

In short: the Supreme Court’s emergency ruling is a major — but provisional — win for the Trump administration’s drive to assert broader control over the federal bureaucracy. By permitting the immediate removal of Wilcox and Harris, the Court has cleared the way for Trump to push forward, potentially influencing labor law, federal personnel protections, and agency independence. Still, the deeper constitutional battle remains unresolved, and the outcome may ultimately hinge on a full merits hearing. What happens next could define presidential power over regulatory and oversight institutions for the foreseeable future.