"Not a king": Judge rebukes Trump firing of Labor Board member
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
The National Labor Relations Board seal hangs inside a hearing room at the headquarters in Washington, D.C. Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
President Trump unlawfully fired Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member at the National Labor Relations Board, a federal judge ruled Thursday, ordering she can resume working.
Why it matters: It's a loss for the Trump administration, which has sought unprecedented control over federal agencies that have historically operated independently.
- Wilcox's reinstatement means the NLRB would once again have the quorum it needs to adjudicate cases over labor law violations — and certify union elections.
- The agency had been hamstrung by the firing. Recently, Whole Foods argued it didn't have to recognize a newly formed union because the agency wasn't operating.
- It is likely the White House will appeal the ruling to a federal appellate court, and is expected to advance from there to the Supreme Court.
Catch up quick: Trump fired Wilcox, the NLRB's first Black woman board member, in an email in January. She had been appointed to a five-year term by President Biden in 2023.
- A president had never fired an NLRB board member in its 90-year history.
- Trump said in the email he believed he had the right to fire Wilcox even though the law says board members can only be removed for cause. She filed suit soon after.
What they're saying: "For 38 days, the President's unlawful attempt to remove me has interfered with the Board's ability to fulfill its congressional mandate," Wilcox said in a statement Thursday.
- "I'm ready to get back to work."
- Her lawyer, Deepak Gupta, said in a statement: "The decisive victory firmly reject an extreme presidential power grab."
The other side: "A radical liberal judge is attempting to reverse the results of the election by declaring that the democratically-elected President lacks authority to remove an officer wielding executive power the Constitution vests in the President alone," said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly in an email.
- "The judge's clearly partisan opinion will not be the last say on the matter, and the Trump Administration will pursue all legal remedies to vindicate the President's power for removal."
The big picture: At stake is the independence of other agencies — from the Federal Trade Commission to the Federal Reserve — where appointees are term-limited and protected from at-will firing.
- The 36-page decision from Judge Beryl Howell, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, makes clear that the stakes of this case are even bigger than the labor board's ability to function.
- It's a test of the separation of powers and the so-called "unitary executive theory" that purports to give sweeping power to the President, she writes.
What she's saying: "At issue in this case, is the President's insistence that he has authority to fire whomever he wants within the Executive branch, overriding any congressionally mandated law in his way," writes Howell, an Obama appointee.
- "The President's interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power— or, more aptly, his aspiration—is flat wrong."
- The word "king" comes up repeatedly in the decision. "An American President is not a king—not even an 'elected' one—and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances, as are present here," Howell writes.
Lauren McFerran, a former NLRB board member who is currently a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, says: "The judge kind of gives a civics lesson here."
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional statements and details from the decision.
