The Trump administration challenges a federal judge’s decision to reinstate Cathy Harris as Chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), sparking a legal battle over presidential authority and the independence of federal agencies.
At a Glance
- Trump administration appeals court ruling reinstating Cathy Harris to MSPB
- Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a temporary restraining order against Harris’s removal
- Civil Service Reform Act protects MSPB members from arbitrary dismissal
- Administration argues for presidential power to remove agency heads at will
- Case raises questions about executive authority and agency independence
Trump Administration Challenges MSPB Reinstatement
In a move that has intensified the debate over executive power, the Trump administration is contesting a federal judge’s decision to reinstate Cathy Harris to her position on the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The administration has taken the fight to a federal appeals court, seeking to prevent Harris’s return to office while the litigation over her termination continues.
The case centers around the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), which provides protections for MSPB members. Under this law, board members can only be removed for specific reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Harris was removed from her position on February 10 without explanation, prompting her to challenge the dismissal.
“Harris has established that this case represents a ‘genuinely extraordinary situation’ meriting injunctive relief for a discharged government employee,” Judge Rudolph Contreras said.
Administration’s Arguments for Removal Power
The Trump administration contends that MSPB members fall under the president’s removal power, arguing that the CSRA’s protections are unconstitutional. Government attorneys have asserted that the MSPB wields significant executive power, justifying presidential discretion in appointments and removals.
“Board members are principal officers who lead a freestanding component within the executive branch and exercise executive power,” government attorneys argued.
This stance reflects a broader push by the administration to expand presidential authority over independent agencies, as evidenced by similar cases involving other agency heads.
The case has raised concerns about the potential erosion of agency independence and the checks and balances within the federal government. Critics argue that allowing at-will removal of MSPB members could compromise the board’s ability to protect federal employees from political retaliation.
“This relief constitutes an extraordinary intrusion into the president’s authority,” government attorneys stated, highlighting the administration’s view on executive power.
