Appeals court reverses Trump firings of 2 board members in cases likely headed for Supreme Court

Los Angeles Times - Apr 7th, 2025

In a recent ruling, a split U.S. appeals court decided that two board members, fired by President Trump, can temporarily resume their roles pending a potential Supreme Court review. The decision, which passed with a 7-4 vote, hinges on a precedent set by the 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor, which restricts presidential power to remove independent board members without cause. The ruling counters a previous judgment by a smaller panel from the same court, which had permitted the firings to stand. The board members in question, Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board, were originally appointed by President Biden.

The implications of this case are significant, as it challenges the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal agencies. Conservative legal theorists have long criticized Humphrey’s Executor, and with a conservative majority currently on the Supreme Court, there is speculation that the precedent may be overturned, which could expand presidential authority. The case is particularly pivotal as it comes amidst Trump's agenda to downsize the federal workforce, a move that could be hampered by Harris's reinstatement. Additionally, Wilcox's case highlights issues of racial and gender representation in federal appointments, as she was the first Black woman on the National Labor Relations Board. The outcome may redefine the separation of powers and impact the functioning of federal labor relations and workforce protections.

Supreme Court Trump Administration Gwynne Wilcox Cathy Harris Merit Systems Protection Board National Labor Relations Board Separation Of Powers Independent Agencies Humphrey’s Executor Presidential Authority

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of a significant legal development involving the balance of power between the presidency and independent agencies. It accurately reports the court's decision and the potential implications for future cases. However, the article could benefit from more detailed explanations of the legal arguments and historical context.

The story is timely and addresses a topic of public interest, particularly in the context of ongoing debates about presidential powers and diversity in government appointments. It maintains a fair balance by presenting perspectives from both sides, but it could enhance its coverage by including more expert analysis and commentary.

Overall, the article is well-structured and readable, but it could improve engagement and impact by incorporating interactive elements and simplifying complex legal concepts. The story effectively addresses a controversial topic, prompting readers to consider the broader implications for governance and representation.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports the appeals court's decision allowing two board members fired by President Trump to return to their jobs, based on the precedent set by *Humphrey's Executor*. It correctly identifies the two board members, Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, and their respective roles on the MSPB and NLRB. The article also accurately mentions the potential implications of the Supreme Court's conservative majority on this precedent.

However, the story could be more precise in detailing the specific legal arguments presented by both sides. While it notes the government's and Wilcox's attorneys' positions, it lacks depth in explaining the legal nuances of their arguments. Additionally, the article could benefit from more context on the historical significance of the *Humphrey's Executor* case and its impact on presidential powers.

Overall, the article presents the core facts correctly, but some areas require further verification, such as the exact legal arguments and the broader implications of the court's decision.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view by including perspectives from both the government and Wilcox's attorneys. It outlines the arguments from both sides, allowing readers to understand the different viewpoints on the issue of presidential power and independent agencies.

However, the article could improve its balance by providing more context on the political implications of the court's decision. For instance, it mentions the political affiliations of the judges involved but does not explore how these affiliations might influence their decisions. Additionally, the article could include more commentary from legal experts on the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision.

Overall, the article maintains a fair balance but could enhance its coverage by incorporating more diverse perspectives and expert analysis.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it easy for readers to follow the main points. It provides a logical flow of information, starting with the court's decision and then delving into the details of the case and its implications.

However, the article could improve clarity by providing more background information on the *Humphrey's Executor* case and its significance. Additionally, some legal terms and concepts could be explained in simpler language to make the article more accessible to a general audience.

Overall, the article is clear and coherent but could enhance its clarity by simplifying complex legal concepts and providing more context.

Source quality

The article is sourced from the Associated Press, a reputable news organization known for its reliable and accurate reporting. The story includes contributions from multiple AP writers, which adds to its credibility.

However, the article does not cite any external sources or experts, which could strengthen its reliability. Including quotes from legal experts or academics specializing in constitutional law would provide additional authority and depth to the coverage.

Overall, the source quality is high due to the AP's reputation, but the inclusion of more diverse sources would enhance the article's credibility further.

Transparency

The article provides a clear overview of the court's decision and the legal context, but it lacks transparency in explaining the methodology behind the court's ruling. It does not delve into the detailed legal reasoning or the specific arguments presented by both sides in the case.

Additionally, the article could improve transparency by disclosing any potential conflicts of interest, such as the political affiliations of the judges involved and how these might affect their rulings. While it mentions the political background of the judges, it does not explore how this might influence the outcome of the case.

Overall, the article offers a basic level of transparency but could benefit from more detailed explanations and disclosures.