Congress created the office of the Register of Copyrights over a hundred years ago to, among other things, provide advice to Congress on the nation’s copyright program. Congress also specified that the Librarian of Congress had the exclusive authority to appoint, supervise, and remove the Registrar. Notwithstanding this, President Trump attempted to unilaterally remove Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, after firing the Librarian of Congress who had appointed her. The administration was seemingly punishing Register Perlmutter for her report on the use of copyrighted material to train generative AI.

In September 2026, the Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of two Members of Congress who are deeply familiar with the Register’s work, Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration Joseph Morelle and Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary Jamie Raskin.  Their brief in support of Registrar Perlmutter makes three principal points.

First, Congress exercised its broad authority over federal offices when creating the Register of Copyrights as a legislative officer under the control of the Librarian of Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine how to shape the federal government, and Congress chose to place the Register of Copyrights within the legislative branch, under the exclusive control of the Librarian of Congress. In doing this, Congress exercised its authority to regulate the appointment and removal of “inferior” officers like the Register of Copyrights. And nowhere in the legislation creating the Register of Copyrights did lawmakers grant the President any authority over her.

Second, presidents have no inherent authority to remove the Register of Copyrights. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, presidents have no authority to remove officers or employees whom they do not appoint. This holding is consistent with the Framers’ understanding at the Founding, confirmed by decades of subsequent practice. And though the Supreme Court recently invalidated removal restrictions applicable to certain presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed heads of independent agencies exercising “vast” regulatory powers, their decision provides no basis for extending the President’s removal power to inferior officers who are not appointed by the President.

Finally, the administration has argued that the Take Care Clause gives presidents inherent constitutional authority to designate acting officers, but no court has ever endorsed that theory. And with good reason: it is at odds with constitutional text and historical practice. Even the executive branch had not previously licensed such a broad contravention of the Appointments Clause.