Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor attend the 60th inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20, 2025, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The issue confronting the justices was whether the board members, both appointed by President Joe Biden, can stay in their jobs while the larger fight continues over what to do with a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, in which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
"Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency," Justice Elena Kagan wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Kagan wrote that her colleagues were telegraphing what would happen.
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown at dusk on June 28, 2023 in Washington, DC (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
"The President would lose control of critical parts of the Executive Branch for a significant portion of his term, and he would likely have to spend further months voiding actions taken by improperly reinstated agency leaders."
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 7–4 to restore Wilcox and Harris to their respective boards, citing Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and Wiener v. United States – landmark rulings that upheld limits on the president’s power to remove members of independent federal agencies.
The majority noted that the Supreme Court has never overturned the decades-old precedent upholding removal protections for members of independent, multimember adjudicatory boards – such as the NLRB and MSPB – and said that precedent supported reinstating Wilcox and Harris.
It also rejected the Trump administration's request for an administrative stay, which would have allowed their removals to remain in place while the challenge proceeds in court.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it," judges noted in their opinion.
The ruling would have temporarily returned Harris and Wilcox to their posts – but the victory was short-lived. The Trump administration quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted an emergency administrative stay blocking their reinstatement.
In their own Supreme Court filings, lawyers for Wilcox and Harris argued that the court should reinstate them to their roles on their respective boards until a federal appeals court can consider the matter.
APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT
President Donald Trump and an image of the U.S. Supreme Court building. (Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
He had maintained the argument that, by law, he could only be dismissed from his position for job performance problems, which were not cited in an email dismissing him from his post.
Dellinger dropped his suit against the administration after the D.C. appellate court issued an unsigned order siding with the Trump administration.
The Justice Department, for its part, said in February a letter to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that it was seeking to overturn Humphrey's Executor.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI, and other national news.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-trumps-removal-biden-appointees-federal-boards