In a decision that dropped like a constitutional thunderclap, a divided D.C. Circuit panel on Friday upheld former President Donald Trump’s removals of two labor-agency officials, ruling that despite statutory protections, the president retains the power to dismiss them because they exercise significant “executive” authority. The opinion overturns two district court rulings that had restored the officials to their posts and throws fresh fuel onto the long-burning debate over the limits of executive control.

Majority Says Old Supreme Court Precedent Doesn’t Shield These Agencies

The judges rejected arguments that the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States insulated the officials from dismissal. Instead, the panel concluded that the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board wield powers far beyond the “limited” quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions described in the 1935 ruling.

“The powers of the NLRB and MSPB substantially exceed the circumscribed administrative powers that Humphrey’s Executor deemed to be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial,” the panel wrote, charting a reading of precedent that sharply narrows the statute-based protections Congress placed on these roles.

The ruling does not change the current landscape, because the Supreme Court earlier stayed an en banc order reinstating NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris, leaving both positions unoccupied pending final resolution.

A Sharp Divide on Independence vs. Executive Control

Judge Gregory Katsas authored the majority opinion, joined by Judge Justin Walker, both characterizing the roles of Wilcox and Harris as sufficiently executive to fall under the president’s constitutional removal authority.

But in a forceful dissent, Judge Florence Pan warned that the majority’s narrow interpretation of Humphrey’s Executor could unravel the structure of administrative independence itself.

Dissent: A Path Toward Eliminating Independent Agencies

“Under my colleagues’ reasoning,” Pan argued, “it appears that no independent agencies may lawfully exist in this country.” She cautioned that the majority’s logic, if extended, could open the door for presidents to dismiss leaders of dozens of agencies Congress has traditionally shielded from political turbulence.

A Panel Split With High Stakes for the Administrative State

Judges Katsas, Walker, and Pan formed the three-judge panel, whose ruling adds yet another chapter to the growing body of litigation reshaping the boundaries between the executive branch and the administrative state.

With the Supreme Court already engaged—via its stay order—the issue appears headed back toward the nation’s highest court, where the decades-old balance of power between Congress and the presidency may again be up for revision.