Rule of Law

CAC Release: Skepticism About Trump Administration’s Power Grab at Labor Rights Agencies at D.C. Circuit Argument This Morning

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today in Harris v. Bessent and Wilcox v. Trump, cases in which the court is considering whether President Trump’s attempts to fire Merit Systems Protection Board Chair Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board Member Gwynne Wilcox were illegal, Constitutional Accountability Center Legal Fellow Margaret Hassel issued the following reaction:

President Trump’s attempts to fire the leaders of agencies that adjudicate labor issues is an attack on not only the independence of those agencies, but also federal and private sector workers and American democracy itself. As Judge Florence Pan identified this morning, under the administration’s legal theory, “virtually any independent agency that currently exists would need to be reconfigured.” That cannot be right, and the Judges correctly pushed back on the government’s sweeping and destructive assertions of presidential power. As counsel for Gwynne Wilcox explained, echoing CAC’s amicus brief in support of Harris and Wilcox, the “settled and unquestioned historical practice between the branches” for more than a century “has recognized Congress’s authority to create independent multimember bodies whose members are protected from at-will removal.” The D.C. Circuit should not upend that established practice now.

CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh added this reaction:

The government’s lawyer conceded, quoting Justice Antonin Scalia, that its position “involves an acceptance of exclusive power that can theoretically be abused.” And today’s argument made clear that the stakes of this case are far from theoretical. As Judge Florence Pan explained, Congress created independent agencies to make certain decisions free from the whims of day-to-day politics. These are, in her words, “real agencies that affect real people.” And the Judges were aware that their decision could affect the Federal Reserve Board—another independent agency whose leaders can only be fired for cause. Judge Pan and Judge Gregory Katsas repeatedly emphasized that the government’s “default” approach to executive power would allow the President to fire Federal Reserve Board members for any reason. Tellingly, the government struggled to articulate an “exception” to its expansive theory for that agency.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
September 10, 2026

September 2026 Newsletter: Protecting People’s Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law Across the Country

This newsletter spends a lot of time on the U.S. Supreme Court, but here at CAC, we’re...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Perlmutter v. Blanche

In Perlmutter v. Blanche, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether the President can unilaterally remove the Register of Copyrights.
Rule of Law
August 18, 2026

Not Above the Law Creator Call

CAC's Praveen Fernandes and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse spoke about what accountability looks like now that...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Sheldon Whitehouse
Rule of Law
August 29, 2026

Interview with Praveen Fernandes, Vice President at the Constitutional Accountability Center

AbbyTheAttorney
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes spoke to Abby Winters about the weaponization of the Department...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Abby Winters
Rule of Law
September 1, 2026

Open Letter: A Network of 175+ Organizations Uniting to Defend the Rule of Law and Protect Vulnerable Communities

Nonprofits Together
CAC signed onto an open letter with a coalition of civil society, advocacy, and nonpartisan...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

In re Trump

In In re Trump, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether a district court can investigate whether the Trump administration defied its orders when it sent Venezuelan...