Summary
This Supreme Court order grants the federal government's application for a stay of district court injunctions that prohibited the President from removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board without cause. The per curiam opinion reasons that the Constitution vests executive power in the President, allowing him to remove executive officers absent narrow statutory exceptions, and balances the equities in favor of maintaining uninterrupted executive function during litigation. Justice Kagan dissents, arguing that the decision improperly bypasses established precedent protecting independent agencies from at-will presidential removal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Government was entitled to a stay of the District Court's orders enjoining the President's removal of members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board.
- Whether, at the stay stage, the President was likely to establish that the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power and therefore fall outside a recognized exception to the President's general removal authority.
- Whether the stay application necessarily implicated the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee.
Holdings
- The Government's application for a stay was granted. The District Court's March 4 and March 6, 2025 orders were stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the D.C. Circuit and disposition of any timely petition for certiorari.
- The Court did not ultimately decide whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within a recognized exception to the President's removal authority; that question was left for resolution after full briefing and argument.
- The stay order did not decide the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee.
Key quotations
“But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” (605 U.S. ____ (2025), at 1)
“The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power.” (605 U.S. ____ (2025), at 1)
“The March 4, 2025, order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25−cv−412, ECF Doc. 39, and the March 6, 2025, order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25−cv−334, ECF Doc. 34, are stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.” (605 U.S. ____ (2025), at 2)
Factual background
The President removed Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, without asserting qualifying cause. Federal statutes protect members of both boards from presidential removal except for specified causes. The district court orders enjoined the removals, and the officers were reinstated before the Supreme Court granted the stay.
Procedural history
The District Court for the District of Columbia entered orders on March 4 and March 6, 2025, enjoining the President's removal of Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris. The orders were apparently continued or affirmed while an appeal proceeded in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Supreme Court granted the Government's application for a stay pending disposition of the appeal and any timely petition for certiorari.