Two Fired Officials Challenge Trump’s Authority in Court
Two federal officials fired by President Donald Trump are back in court, fighting to reclaim their jobs. Their lawsuits challenge the extent of Trump’s power to remove independent agency leaders.
Two Fired Officials Challenge Trump’s Authority in Court
The cases could reshape the balance of executive authority in the U.S. government. Here’s a detailed look at the development, the reasons behind the firings, the officials involved, their legal arguments, and the broader context of Trump’s personnel shakeup in 2025.
Background of the Dispute
The legal battle stems from Trump’s aggressive push to overhaul the federal government after taking office in January 2025. His administration has targeted what he calls the “deep state” – career officials he believes oppose his agenda.
Trump issued an executive order in February 2025, enabling mass firings and agency reorganizations. This move aimed to streamline government operations, cut costs, and install loyalists in key roles. However, it sparked a wave of lawsuits, with fired employees arguing the dismissals were illegal.
The two officials at the center of this case were removed from independent federal labor boards. Their firings are part of a broader purge affecting thousands of federal workers.
The officials claim Trump’s actions violate laws protecting independent agency leaders from arbitrary dismissal. Their cases have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, drawing attention for their potential to redefine presidential power. Legal experts say the outcome could affect agencies like the Federal Reserve, which operate independently of the White House.
The dispute also builds on a 1935 Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This ruling limited the president’s ability to fire independent agency officials without cause, such as neglect of duty or malfeasance. The fired officials argue this precedent protects them, while Trump’s team insists he has broad authority to remove appointees.
Why Trump Fired the Officials
Trump’s decision to fire the two officials aligns with his campaign promise to shrink the federal government. He has accused career bureaucrats of undermining his policies, particularly those from Democratic administrations. President Joe Biden appointed the officials, but they soon became obstacles to Donald Trump’s push for a leaner, more loyal government.
The administration’s legal team argues that the president has constitutional authority to remove officials who exercise executive power. They claim the Humphrey’s Executor precedent is outdated and restricts Trump’s ability to implement his agenda. By firing these officials, Trump aimed to replace them with appointees who share his views on labor policy and government efficiency.
Additionally, the firings were part of a larger initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk. DOGE has pushed agencies to eliminate “duplicative roles” and “non-critical jobs.” Trump’s team targeted the two officials’ boards for cuts, arguing that they hindered labor and personnel reforms. The administration also aimed to send a clear message: opposition to Trump’s agenda would not be tolerated.
Who Are the Two Officials?
The officials are Cathy Harris and Sharon Wilcox, both removed from federal labor boards in early 2025. Harris served on the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which handles federal employee appeals. Wilcox was a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which oversees labor disputes and union activities. Both were appointed by Biden, with Harris starting in 2021 and Wilcox in 2023. Their terms were set to continue beyond 2025.
Harris, a career civil servant, was known for her work protecting federal whistleblowers. Her firing came on February 10, 2025, after Trump named a Republican replacement. Wilcox, the first Black woman on the NLRB, was dismissed on January 27, 2025. Neither received a specific reason for their termination, prompting accusations of political retaliation.
Their backgrounds as Biden appointees made them targets for Trump’s administration, which has prioritized loyalty in its personnel decisions. The independent board members insist that presidential influence should not dictate their roles, emphasizing in their lawsuits that they are legally protected from such interference.. They seek reinstatement and a ruling that Trump’s actions were unlawful.
Legal Basis for Their Court Challenge
Harris and Wilcox base their lawsuits on federal laws and the Humphrey’s Executor precedent. These laws state that independent agency officials can only be fired for cause, such as inefficiency or misconduct.
The officials argue Trump violated these protections by dismissing them without evidence of wrongdoing. Their attorneys claim the firings were politically motivated, aimed at consolidating Trump’s control over labor policy.
Case
The cases also challenge the constitutionality of Trump’s February executive order. The plaintiffs argue it bypasses congressional oversight and civil service protections.
They say the order, combined with DOGE’s secretive plans, threatens the independence of federal agencies. Lower courts initially blocked their removals, citing the 1935 precedent. However, on April 9, 2025, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily halted these rulings, allowing Trump to proceed with the firings while the Supreme Court reviews the case.
The officials’ legal teams warn that upholding the firings could weaken independent agencies nationwide. They argue it would give presidents unchecked power to remove officials who enforce labor, antitrust, or financial regulations. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected later in 2025, could either reinforce or overturn the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, with far-reaching implications.
Scale of Firings and Court Cases
Since Trump took office in January 2025, at least 121,000 federal employees have been fired or targeted for layoffs, according to a CNN analysis.
This covers 75,000 individuals who accepted deferred resignations, while seven agencies—such as the Department of Education and the Agency for International Development—have faced significant reductions. The Department of Health and Human Services alone lost 10,000 jobs by April 2025. Immigration courts also saw over two dozen judges fired, exacerbating a backlog of nearly 4 million cases.
The firings have triggered over 150 legal challenges. Dozens of Justice Department lawyers, public television officials, and probationary workers are fighting their dismissals. Some cases have seen temporary victories, like a May 10 ruling by Judge Susan Illston, which paused mass layoffs at 24 agencies.
However, the Supreme Court and appeals courts have often sided with Trump, allowing many firings to proceed. For example, on April 9, the Supreme Court blocked a California ruling reinstating 16,000 probationary workers.
The Harris and Wilcox cases are among the most high-profile, given their Supreme Court involvement. Over 8,000 fired workers have appealed to the MSPB, overwhelming its capacity. The Justice Department vows to defend Trump’s agenda, but legal battles could drag on for months, with some cases likely heading to the Supreme Court.
Current Status and Implications
As of May 16, 2025, the Harris and Wilcox cases await a Supreme Court decision. The justices are weighing whether to uphold the Humphrey’s Executor precedent or expand Trump’s removal powers.
The outcome could affect not just labor boards but also agencies like the Federal Reserve, where Chair Jerome Powell faces Trump’s scrutiny. Powell has said he’s monitoring the cases but believes they won’t apply to the Fed.
Lower court rulings, like Illston’s May 10 order, have temporarily halted some layoffs, but these are often overturned on appeal.
The Justice Department argues that courts lack jurisdiction over personnel decisions, which should go through administrative bodies like the MSPB. Meanwhile, labor unions and nonprofits continue filing lawsuits, alleging Trump’s cuts violate privacy laws and agency mandates.
The legal fights reflect a broader clash between Trump’s vision and the federal workforce. His supporters see the firings as necessary to curb bureaucracy; critics warn they destabilize critical services.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Harris and Wilcox could set a precedent for years, defining the limits of presidential power in a polarized era.
