The Supreme Court has delivered a significant victory for presidential authority, effectively endorsing President Donald Trump's decisive action to remove a Democrat-appointed member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This decision underscores the judiciary's growing recognition of the President's constitutional power to shape the executive branch, pushing back against entrenched bureaucratic resistance.
On October 19, the nation's highest court declined to hear the case of Gwynne Wilcox, a Democrat-appointed NLRB member who was fired by President Trump. The unanimous, unsigned order from the justices, offering no explanation, leaves in place a critical December 2025 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
That D.C. Circuit decision emphatically stated that the President possesses the authority to remove NLRB members at will. This move directly builds upon the Supreme Court’s landmark June 29 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which boldly overturned the 1935 precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Slaughter rightly expanded presidential authority, affirming that Congress cannot restrict a president's power to fire members of multi-member independent agencies that exercise executive power.
Wilcox, initially appointed to the NLRB by President Joe Biden in 2021 and reappointed in 2023, found herself on the receiving end of President Trump's commitment to accountability. Trump ordered her termination on January 27, 2025, notifying her via email.
The administration's email explicitly stated the NLRB was "not presently fulfilling its responsibility to the American people" and would better serve "with personnel of [Trump’s] own selection." It further clarified that Wilcox "had not, in [Trump’s] judgment, been operating in a manner consistent with the objectives of [his] administration."
Beyond general alignment, the email highlighted substantive concerns, including that several of Wilcox’s decisions raised "serious First Amendment concerns" and "vastly exceeded the bounds of the National Labor Relations Act." This directly challenged the notion of a neutral, unelected bureaucracy acting beyond its statutory and constitutional limits.
Despite the National Labor Relations Act stipulating that an NLRB member can be fired for neglect of duty or "malfeasance," Wilcox initially sued in federal district court in Washington. She secured a summary judgment on March 6, 2025, with the court deeming her removal "unlawful" and asserting she "remains a member" only removable on statutory grounds. This district court, trapped by outdated precedent, clung to Humphrey’s Executor, arguing the executive branch isn't "strictly unitary" and presidential removal power isn't "unrestricted."
But sanity prevailed at the D.C. Circuit. A divided panel, led by Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, ruled on December 5, 2025, that President Trump could indeed fire members of independent labor boards. Judge Katsas unequivocally declared that Congress cannot constitutionally restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB members because the board wields "substantial executive power."
Predictably, Circuit Judge Florence Pan dissented, echoing the left's standard alarm bells. She questioned the government's argument, bizarrely claiming that allowing the president to control his own executive branch "concentrates excessive power in the president and thus paves the way to autocracy." And somehow, they still expect Americans not to notice the hypocrisy.
Wilcox’s attorneys then petitioned the Supreme Court, even while Trump v. Slaughter was pending. They tried to argue that the NLRB’s five-member board was "primarily adjudicatory," not executive, suggesting Slaughter might not apply. They warned of "constitutional uncertainty" casting doubt on the agency’s decisions—a desperate plea for special treatment.
The government, however, rightly countered in a September 14 brief that in light of the Slaughter ruling, Wilcox’s claims "clearly lack merit," and the petition should be denied. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case confirms this view, signaling a clear disinclination to carve out politically convenient exceptions for agencies like the NLRB.
This Supreme Court order is more than a legal technicality; it's a reaffirmation of the President's constitutional authority to govern and hold unelected bureaucrats accountable. It reinforces the America First principle that the executive branch exists to serve the American people, not to operate as an independent, unaccountable fourth branch of government. This strengthens future presidents' ability to implement their mandates and curb the excesses of the administrative state, a win for common sense and American self-governance.
