A federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), delivering a legal rebuke to what many critics see as his ongoing efforts to consolidate executive power. In a 36-page decision, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell reinstated Gwynne Wilcox, who was unlawfully removed by Trump without cause, and warned that the president’s interpretation of executive power violates the Constitution.
Howell’s ruling is expected to become a landmark case in the fight over presidential authority, as it pushes back on Trump’s efforts to expand his ability to fire federal officials at will. The case also sheds light on the unitary executive theory, a radical legal doctrine that Trump and his allies have used to justify removing career civil servants and independent agency officials who do not align with his political agenda.
Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the NLRB, was dismissed by Trump earlier this year, alongside NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. The firings left the agency without a quorum, effectively shutting down federal labor law enforcement in the U.S. and preventing the NLRB from ruling on cases involving illegal union-busting, unfair labor practices, and workplace violations.
Wilcox quickly filed a lawsuit challenging her removal, arguing that Trump lacked the legal authority to fire her because the NLRB is an independent agency designed to be insulated from political interference. Judge Howell agreed, declaring Wilcox’s dismissal unlawful and void.
In her opinion, Howell made it clear that the Constitution does not grant the president absolute authority over independent agencies. She emphasized that Trump’s view of presidential power is flat wrong and that his attempts to govern as a monarch are dangerous to democracy.
Judge Howell’s ruling directly called out Trump’s attempts to expand executive power. In a scathing passage, she wrote:
“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 also cited the White House’s controversial February 19 social media post, which featured an image of Trump wearing a crown alongside the text: “Long live the king.”
“A president who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution,” Howell wrote.
The judge warned that Trump is testing the limits of his office by ignoring statutory law and attempting to consolidate executive power in ways that violate the separation of powers. She wrote that Trump is pushing the boundaries of his authority “to see how much the courts will accept the notion of a presidency that is supreme.”
At the heart of Howell’s ruling is a direct challenge to the unitary executive theory, a long-standing legal argument that claims the president should have absolute control over the executive branch, including the power to fire any federal official at will.
While this theory has been debated in conservative legal circles for decades, Trump has aggressively tested its limits by firing inspectors general, career civil servants, and independent agency officials. His illegal dismissal of Wilcox is the latest in a series of removals designed to weaken independent oversight and consolidate power in the White House.
Judge Howell explicitly rejected this legal theory, reaffirming that Congress has the authority to place limits on the president’s power to fire officials within independent agencies.
Wilcox’s reinstatement is being hailed as a major victory for workers’ rights, labor unions, and democratic governance. Her removal had paralyzed the NLRB, allowing corporations to violate labor laws without accountability.
AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler celebrated Howell’s ruling, stating:
“More than a month after Trump effectively shut down the NLRB by illegally firing Gwynne Wilcox, denying it the quorum it needs to hold union-busters accountable, the court ordered Wilcox immediately returned to her seat, allowing the NLRB to get back to its essential work.”
Shuler also emphasized that the ruling sends an important message that the president cannot undermine an independent agency simply because he disagrees with its rulings.
Wilcox’s case is not an isolated incident. Trump has systematically removed officials from independent agencies and federal oversight bodies, prompting a wave of legal challenges:
• Jennifer Abruzzo, NLRB General Counsel – Fired alongside Wilcox, disrupting labor law enforcement.
• Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger – Removed from his role overseeing whistleblower protections; dropped his legal bid to reclaim his position after a federal appeals court sided with Trump.
• Cathy Harris, Merit Systems Protection Board – Successfully reinstated by a federal judge after challenging her dismissal.
Legal experts believe that these cases may soon reach the Supreme Court, where Trump’s conservative supermajority could determine whether the unitary executive theory becomes law.
The fight over Wilcox’s firing and reinstatement is far from over. Trump’s legal team has already signaled its intention to appeal the ruling, potentially sending the case to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Congress could intervene by passing legislation to protect independent agencies from political interference. However, with Republicans controlling both chambers, legislative action is unlikely.
Legal experts warn that if Trump succeeds in overturning Howell’s ruling, it could set a dangerous precedent, allowing future presidents to fire independent agency officials at will—effectively eliminating critical checks on executive power.
If the courts allow Trump to continue firing federal officials without cause, it could permanently shift the balance of power in the U.S. government, eroding the independence of federal agencies and granting the president near-monarchical authority over the executive branch.
With Trump’s increasing willingness to challenge legal limits, the judiciary’s response to these cases will determine whether American democracy can withstand the pressure of an executive branch pushing against its constitutional constraints.
As Howell warned in her ruling, “The courts are now again forced to determine how much encroachment on the legislature our Constitution can bear and face a slippery slope toward endorsing a presidency that is untouchable by the law.”
COMMENTS