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
U.S. Supreme Court

Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission

In Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether a showing of pecuniary harm to investors is a prerequisite to an award of disgorgement in a civil action brought by the...
Rule of Law
April 30, 2026

13th Annual Home Stretch at the Supreme Court

Host: Constitutional Accountability Center
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.