Appeals court hands Trump a victory, OK'ing firing of two independent agency heads
Briefly

Appeals court hands Trump a victory, OK'ing firing of two independent agency heads
"The case decided by the appeals court was brought by Cathy Harris, a Democratic member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board. Trump fired both within weeks of taking office but did not cite any permissible reason, such as neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. The MSPB hears federal employees' appeals of personnel actions taken by the government."
"Initially, lower courts ordered the two officials reinstated, citing a 1935 Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that unanimous decision, the court held that while the president has the power to remove purely executive officers for any reason, that unlimited power does not extend to agencies whose duties "are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.""
"The Trump administration appealed, and in May, the Supreme Court weighed in with an emergency order allowing the firings of Harris and Wilcox to stand pending a merits hearing in their combined case. "The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power," the Supreme Court majority wrote in the unsigned order."
A federal appeals court ruled 2-to-1 that President Trump lawfully fired two members of independent agencies despite federal laws allowing removal only for cause. The officials were Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board, both removed shortly after Trump took office without cited permissible reasons. Lower courts ordered reinstatement based on Humphrey's Executor, which limits presidential removal from quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial agencies. The Supreme Court issued an emergency stay allowing the firings to stand pending review, noting both agencies may exercise considerable executive power. The appeals court majority cited substantive rulemaking and executive functions.
Read at www.npr.org
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]