President Donald Trump just scored a major win at the Supreme Court, flexing his executive muscle to oust federal bureaucrats, as SCOTUSblog.com reports. On Thursday, the court paused lower judges’ orders, letting Trump remove two Biden-appointed officials without jumping through progressive hoops. This isn’t just a power grab -- it’s a signal that the woke grip on Washington might be loosening.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order allows Trump to fire Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board, both appointed by then-President Joe Biden with terms lasting until 2028. This decision extends a temporary stay by Chief Justice John Roberts, keeping the issue alive in appeals courts and potentially back at the Supreme Court.
Trump’s move to sack Wilcox and Harris earlier in 2025 sparked the fight, as both argued their roles required “good cause” for removal. Federal judges in Washington, D.C., initially sided with them, ordering the administration to keep them in place. But the Supreme Court’s latest ruling suggests the president’s authority might trump such protections.
A three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit had briefly blocked the lower courts’ orders, only for the full court to reverse that decision. The Trump administration, undeterred, asked the Supreme Court on April 9, to pause those rulings or settle the matter outright. The majority’s two-page order now tilts the scales in Trump’s favor, pending further litigation.
The court’s majority argued the government faces greater harm if removed officials keep wielding power. “Reflects our judgment,” they wrote, that Trump’s authority outweighs the risk to Wilcox and Harris. This cuts through the red tape of bureaucratic entrenchment, prioritizing executive accountability.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, calling the order “nothing short of extraordinary.” She claims it undermines bipartisan governance and a 1935 precedent commonly referenced as Humphrey’s Executor. But her handwringing ignores the reality: unelected officials shouldn’t outlast the president’s mandate.
Kagan argued the decision lets Trump “overrule Humphrey’s by fiat,” warning it disrupts independent agencies. “Undergirds a significant feature,” she said, of expertise-driven governance. Yet her nostalgia for insulated bureaucrats feels like a defense of the administrative state’s overreach.
Wilcox and Harris, meanwhile, pleaded their case in court, insisting their roles are shielded from arbitrary dismissal. Harris described the MSPB as a neutral body that “merely hears discrete cases” about civil servants. But if their jobs are so routine, why the fierce resistance to Trump’s lawful authority?
The majority brushed aside Harris’s claim that the ruling threatens the Federal Reserve’s structure. They called the Fed a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity,” distinct from agencies like the NLRB or MSPB. This clarity shuts down scare tactics about economic chaos.
Wilcox argued that no damage comes from letting appeals play out, saying, “No real-world harm” results from a few months’ delay. Her calm dismissal of Trump’s urgency reeks of entitlement, as if her seat is untouchable. The Supreme Court, wisely, didn’t buy it.
The D.C. Circuit heard arguments just days before the Supreme Court’s May 22 ruling, showing the case’s fast track. The majority’s view that the NLRB and MSPB wield “considerable executive power” underscores why Trump’s removal power matters. These aren’t minor roles -- they shape policy and labor disputes.
Kagan’s dissent leaned heavily on Humphrey’s Executor, insisting that it “remains good law.” She accused the majority of favoring Trump over precedent without proper debate. But her reverence for old rulings feels like a dodge to preserve a system that coddles careerists.
The Supreme Court’s order doesn’t settle the constitutional question but keeps Trump’s authority intact, at least for now. By pausing the lower courts’ rulings, it ensures the president can act decisively without endless legal roadblocks. This is a blow to the entrenched elite who think they’re above the ballot box.
Wilcox and Harris may still fight in appeals, but the Supreme Court’s signal is clear: executive power belongs to the president, not holdover appointees. The majority’s focus on harm to the government over individual officers aligns with a no-nonsense approach to governance. Actions, after all, have consequences.
As litigation looms, this ruling sets the stage for a broader showdown over presidential power. Trump’s push to clean house challenges the cozy status quo of insulated agencies. For those tired of woke bureaucrats calling the shots, this is a refreshing step toward accountability.
