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. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security

In DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through...
Rule of Law
July 10, 2026

July Newsletter: The Legacy of the Declaration of Independence Belongs to We the People

Rule of Law
July 7, 2026

CAC Release: DOJ Under Todd Blanche Fails to Disclose Epstein Files (Again)

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the Trump administration’s failure to disclose the Epstein files...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 4, 2026

Why Would President Trump Want to Celebrate the Declaration of Independence?

Common Dreams
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes wrote an op-ed for Common Dreams explaining the similarities between...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
June 29, 2026

The Supreme Court is ‘Unquestionably an Ideological Court’ Says Wydra

Bloomberg TV
CAC President Elizabeth Wydra joined Bloomberg's Balance of Power to discuss the end of the...