The Merit Systems Protection Board is led by three presidentially appointed board members who may be removed from office only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. In 2025, the Trump Administration attempted to fire Cathy Harris from the Board without cause, in defiance of the Civil Service Reform Act. The Administration asserted that the MSPB’s leadership structure is unconstitutional because it allows the President to remove the agency’s board members only for good cause, not at will. But that good cause protection ensures that the MSPB can fairly adjudicate federal employees’ challenges to adverse employment actions taken against them. In February 2025, CAC filed an amicus brief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in support of Harris.   

President Trump argued that under the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, the MSPB’s board members must be removable at will by the President. Our brief showed why this is wrong.   

We first demonstrated that Seila Law did not call into question the legitimacy of agencies structured like the MSPB, sometimes referred to as multimember independent agencies. As we explained, Seila Law addressed only the relatively new phenomenon of an agency led by a single director who is not removable at will. Based on three unique features of these single-director independent agencies, the Supreme Court concluded that they represent a novel intrusion on presidential authority that clashes with constitutional structure. The Court was clear, however, that it was not overruling its precedent upholding similar removal limits for the leaders of “a traditional independent agency, run by a multimember board.” None of the reasons the Supreme Court gave for striking down the leadership structure of the CFPB in Seila Law apply to the MSPB—a traditional multimember agency that resembles agencies dating back 150 years in every constitutionally significant way.    

Our brief next explained why long-established practice has placed the validity of multimember independent agencies like the MSPB beyond doubt. In separation-of-powers cases, courts place significant weight upon historical practice, because it embodies the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of government themselves have reached. Congress has been assigning regulatory authority to multimember independent agencies for most of the nation’s history, beginning nearly 150 years ago. Supreme Court decisions, including Seila Law, have consistently confirmed the validity of these traditional agencies. The MSPB cannot be distinguished from the host of other multimember independent agencies that have long populated the executive branch.   

Finally, we argued that the text and history of the Constitution further underscore the legitimacy of multimember independent agencies. Apart from Congress’s power to impeach, the Constitution is silent with respect to the power of removal. Instead, it broadly empowers Congress to shape the federal government in the course of creating its “Departments” and “Officers.” There is no historical basis for the claim that Congress lacks any authority to modify or temper the President’s ability to remove federal officers. Constitutional text and history do not support President Trump’s assertion that good-cause tenure for MSPB Members violates his Article II authority.  

In short, our brief showed that the MSPB’s leadership structure is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and established practice, and Harris’s firing without good cause was unlawful.  

In March 2025, the District Court ruled in favor of Harris and upheld the constitutionality of the MSPB’s structure. Echoing our brief, the court explained that Seila Law did not “undermine[] the constitutionality of the traditional independent agency structure outlined in Humphrey’s Executor” and, on the contrary, found “a robust basis” for multimember agencies “in this country’s history.” The court thus concluded that the President’s attempt to fire Harris without cause was unlawful.

Shortly after the district court issued it decision, the government moved to stay that decision first in the district court and then in the D.C. Circuit.  CAC filed an amicus brief in opposition to the government’s motion to stay the district court’s order in the D.C. Circuit.