Judge Orders Federal Official To Be Temporarily Reinstated
A legal battle over the future of independent agencies in the federal government is rapidly making its way to the Supreme Court, with profound implications for executive power. On Tuesday, Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, issued an order reinstating Cathy Harris, a Biden-appointed member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), after she was fired by President Trump.
This decision sets the stage for a direct challenge to the 1935 Supreme Court precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which has long shielded independent agencies from full presidential control.
The MSPB plays a critical role in adjudicating employment disputes involving civil service employees, and its members, like Harris, can only be removed “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Harris, who was appointed to a seven-year term in 2022, was abruptly dismissed on February 10, 2025, via email from the Trump administration.
In his ruling, Judge Contreras argued that Harris was likely to succeed in her legal challenge, that she would suffer irreparable harm without judicial relief, and that the public interest favored blocking her removal.
The foundation of Contreras’s ruling rests on Humphrey’s Executor, a nearly century-old decision that upheld restrictions on the president’s ability to remove officials from independent regulatory agencies. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have called the precedent into question.
In cases such as Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), the Court ruled that agencies exercising significant executive authority must be accountable to the president, raising serious doubts about the legitimacy of boards like the MSPB operating beyond presidential oversight.
This case is now headed to the D.C. Circuit and almost certainly to the Supreme Court. Another pending case, that of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, presents a similar challenge. Like Harris, Dellinger was fired by Trump despite statutory protections, and a lower court ordered his reinstatement. The Supreme Court is set to receive Dellinger’s response to the government’s objections by 2 p.m. Wednesday, marking another step toward what could be a landmark ruling on executive authority.
Beyond Harris and Dellinger, several other firings may test the limits of Humphrey’s Executor. Trump’s dismissal of 17 inspectors general—who, by law, can only be removed with 30 days’ notice to Congress and an explanation—could prompt additional legal challenges. A similar situation could arise concerning a fired member of the National Labor Relations Board.
The stakes of these cases are immense. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump’s firings, it could dismantle the legal framework that has allowed independent agencies to operate with minimal executive oversight for nearly a century. A ruling against Trump, however, would reaffirm the insulation of these agencies from direct presidential control, preserving a long-standing but increasingly controversial structure of the federal government.