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
April 22, 2026

CAC Release: Targeting Civil Rights Groups Leaves All Americans Less Safe

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to yesterday’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Constitutional...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
April 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Whether Investor Harm Is a Prerequisite to an Award of Disgorgement in a Civil Action Brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s oral argument at the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. Securities...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
April 15, 2026

Court to contemplate SEC’s use of disgorgement in securities enforcement

SCOTUSBlog
CAC's amici brief on behalf of legal scholars in Sripetch v. SEC was featured in SCOTUSblog. Read more...
Rule of Law
April 14, 2026

CAC Release: Failing to Enforce Subpoena of Bondi is Failing the American People

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the unexplained cancellation of Pam Bondi’s scheduled deposition, Constitutional...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
April 2, 2026

Consumer Groups Back SEC In High Court Disgorgement Row

Law360
CAC Legal Fellow Simon Chin discussed CAC's amici brief on behalf of legal scholars in Sripetch...
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...