High Country Advocate Staff Report
President Donald Trump scored two major victories in federal court Thursday as judges cleared the way for sweeping expansions of presidential authority over independent agencies and immigration policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump acted lawfully when he fired two members of independent federal agencies without citing any legal cause. The decision allows the president to remove National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris despite federal laws requiring officials can only be dismissed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Trump fired both women within weeks of taking office but provided no permissible reason. Lower court judges had ordered them reinstated, citing the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor that upheld limits Congress placed on presidential removal powers.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas—a Trump appointee—argued that both agencies exercise significant executive power through rulemaking and enforcement authority. The decision suggests that the 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agencies may no longer apply to bodies with substantial regulatory powers.
Judge Florence Pan, appointed by President Biden, dissented sharply. “Although my colleagues attempt to couch their analysis in narrow terms, they redefine the type of executive power that must be placed under the exclusive command of the President, and effectively grant him dominion over approximately thirty-three previously independent agencies,” Pan wrote.
The D.C. Circuit ruling comes just days before the Supreme Court hears arguments Monday on Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in a nearly identical dispute. The appellate court’s decision signals how that case may be resolved.
Also Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship violates the Constitution. The justices will hear arguments in spring 2026 with a ruling expected by June.
Trump’s January 20 executive order declared that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. The order has never taken effect because every lower court that examined it concluded it violates the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
That provision, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The language was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves and their children, were recognized as citizens.
Trump’s administration argues the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors. In urging Supreme Court review, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote that the 14th Amendment “was adopted to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children—not to the children of aliens illegally or temporarily in the United States.”
The case marks the first Trump immigration policy the Supreme Court will rule on constitutional merits rather than through emergency requests. The court took up a New Hampshire case where a federal judge certified a provisional class of all babies who would be denied citizenship under Trump’s order.
Twenty-four Republican-led states and 27 Republican lawmakers are backing the administration. Legal scholars across the political spectrum have said birthright citizenship has been settled law for more than a century.
The twin developments Thursday demonstrate how Trump’s second term has made presidential authority over the executive branch a central constitutional question. Both cases involve Trump removing long-standing restrictions on executive power that Congress established to ensure government independence from political control.
The D.C. Circuit decision leaves both the NLRB and MSPB without enough members to hear cases while the Supreme Court prepares to potentially overturn precedents protecting dozens of federal agencies from presidential interference.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 