Trump’s ‘You’re Fired’ Style Splinters Legal Debate: Explained

President Donald Trump’s firings of independent and legislative-branch agency officials sparked a recent flurry of court rulings, showing that judges are still wrestling with the scope of presidential removal power.

This week, a district court temporarily blocked Trump from firing a Federal Reserve governor, a circuit court temporarily reinstated the head of the US Copyright Office, and US Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily nullified an order reinstating a Federal Trade Commission member.

Each of these cases raise different questions that courts must sort through to determine whether Trump’s terminations can pass legal muster.

What’s the law on removing agency officials?

The US Supreme Court backed Congress’ ability to limit the president’s power to fire agency officials 90 years ago with its ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. US, which upheld the constitutionality of job shields for FTC members that allow their dismissal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Trump kicked off a test of Humphrey’s Executor a week into his second term when he fired National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox, who has tenure protections similar to those of FTC members.

The Trump administration hasn’t argued that Humphrey’s Executor needs to be overturned to justify the dismissal of Wilcox. Instead, US Justice Department lawyers said the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Seila Law v. CFPB clarified the scope of Humphrey’s Executor such that it doesn’t cover NLRB members because of the level of executive authority they exercise.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled that it agrees with the administration’s view in a May ruling that blocked lower court orders calling for the reinstatement of Wilcox and fired Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris.

Does Humphrey’s Executor still apply to the FTC?

A district court and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that it does, but the Trump administration disagrees. According to the Justice Department, Seila Law made clear that the Supreme Court approved of restrictions on firing FTC members based on the authority those members exercised in 1935—but the agency has since evolved well beyond those boundaries.

The modern FTC has amassed significant executive power over the past 90 years, including the ability to sue companies for alleged violations of consumer protection and antitrust laws, Justice Department lawyers said.

The chief justice’s Sept. 8 order blocking a lower court’s reinstatement of Democratic FTC member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter suggests the Supreme Court’s conservatives support the Trump administration’s position that the FTC’s executive power leaves commissioners subject to at-will dismissal. Roberts’ order, which came with no explanation, blocked Slaughter from returning to her job at least until the full court decides how to handle the case.

Does that leave Fed officials exposed?

Although the conservative justices strongly hinted that it backs the Trump administration’s argument that Seila Law has already gutted Humphrey’s Executor, they also staked out a position that the Fed is different from other agencies—in a way that could keep Trump from axing its chair and governors without cause.

“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the conservative justices said in their May order blocking the reinstatement of Wilcox at the NLRB and Harris at the MSPB.

Rather than assert at-will removal authority in a way that would seemingly clash with the Supreme Court’s carve-out, Trump claimed to have cause to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook: the Federal Housing Finance Agency director referred her for potential criminal prosecution over alleged mortgage fraud.

A federal judge temporarily blocked Cook’s removal, saying that her job protections limit removal to causes that concern a Fed governor’s behavior in office. Firing her based on the FHFA director’s allegations also likely violated Cook’s due process rights, the court said.

The Trump administration has appealed that order and asked the DC Circuit to immediately pause it.

Can Trump reach into the legislative branch?

While the Library of Congress resides in the legislative branch, its head is a president-appointed, Senate confirmed position. The Copyright Office, like its parent agency, advises Congress but also carries out executive functions.

That dynamic has divided judges on the apparent legality of Trump’s firing of Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, a task delegated by law to the librarian of Congress.

Two Biden appointees on the D.C. Circuit temporarily returned Perlmutter to her post Wednesday, saying that the Library—and therefore the Copyright Office—is “firmly” in the legislative branch. They noted Perlmutter alleged Trump fired her in retaliation for a report on the legality of training AI on copyrighted works—a legislative function.

The panel majority reinstated Perlmutter pending her appeal of a district court’s refusal of preliminary injunction. Her motion for summary judgment awaits action in district court.

Dissenting from that order, a Trump appointee on the panel cited precedent suggesting the Library’s copyright functions are purely executive, pointing to D.C. Circuit opinions in 2012 and 2024 that deemed the Library part of the executive branch in the contexts of its rulemaking and royalty rate-setting tribunal functions. Trump has also cited those cases to say he has the power to fire Perlmutter and replace her under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Reading List

• US Chief Justice Lets Trump Oust FTC Commissioner for Now
• Supreme Court Shields Fed While Letting Trump Oust Officials
• Fired Copyright Chief Temporarily Regains Job During Appeal
• Trump’s Firing of Copyright Chief Sparks Constitutional Clash