Washington — The Supreme Court just over a month ago expanded presidential power when it struck down removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission, clearing the way for the president to fire members of certain independent boards and commissions. But as the high court considered the legality of Congress’ efforts to shield those officials from political pressure, legal fights arising from President Trump’s attempts to fire an array of other federal workers — from Justice Department lawyers to immigration judges — have intensified.
The cases could pose the next test of presidential power and have significant implications for civil service protections that have been in place since the late 1970s and the federal workers covered by them, legal scholars say. It would likely mean that every single one of the millions of federal workers throughout the federal government would not be protected from arbitrary abuse, discrimination and retaliation.
“The question of whether we can have a civil service staffed by individuals who are selected and retained based on their expertise, qualifications and employment performance, rather than the political ideology of the president is the entire foundation of our modern administrative state,” said Robert Bednar, a professor at George Washington University Law School.
Since the start of his second term, Mr. Trump has undertaken sweeping efforts to reshape the federal government. As part of his plans, which include downsizing the executive branch, more than 25,000 government workers who were still in their probationary periods were terminated and agencies implemented plans for mass layoffs, called reductions in force.
But for hundreds of other civil servants — those considered “inferior officers,” as well as employees — the president has invoked Article II of the Constitution to fire them outside of procedures dictated by civil service laws, arguing it is an exercise of his executive authority. “Inferior” executive branch officials may be appointed by the president or the head of a department, and they’re generally supervised by principal officers, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Trump’s firings of those federal officials are now on a track headed for the Supreme Court, as a federal appeals court is poised to hear arguments this fall in a case brought by two former immigration judges, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, who were terminated. Slaughter was ousted from her role in March 2025, soon after Jackler and Jaroch lost their jobs as immigration judges.
While cases before appeals courts are typically heard first by three-judge panels, the Federal Circuit in June granted Jackler and Jaroch’s request for its full slate of judges to consider their case from the outset — an indication that it recognizes the importance of the matter. “This is the case that is going to go to the Supreme Court to test this issue,” Bednar said of whether the president has the power to remove federal employees without cause.
The decision is likely to have ramifications for dozens of other independent multimember agencies, which Congress sought to insulate from politics by allowing the president to remove their members only for cause — typically instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
In a little-noticed March decision, the board found that “no entity, including Congress or the Board, may place restrictions” on the president’s removal authority, “for doing so would infringe upon the president’s ability to faithfully execute the laws.” The Justice Department had argued that Article II invalidated removal protections for inferior officers under the Civil Service Reform Act, a landmark law enacted in 1978 that provides protections for federal workers, and the Merit Systems Protection Board agreed.
But the high court has in a series of decisions over the last 140 years — most recently in 2021 — upheld the civil service system and reaffirmed that Congress can “limit and restrict” the removal of inferior officers. In his June opinion in Slaughter’s case, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court did not “determine the fate of officials not before us.” And in a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted civil service laws, writing they “ordinarily afford rank-and-file agency employees” protections.
“‘What text, history and structure settle, our precedent confirms: the president may remove his subordinates at will.’ That’s pretty broad,” said Joel Alicea, a law professor at Catholic University, quoting Roberts’ decision. “This court does seem pretty committed to the formalist and textualist position that all executive power is vested in the president. If that is true, it is hard to see how that does not extend to inferior officers, so I would think they might carry it to that logical conclusion.”
Still, in a dissenting opinion in the Slaughter case in June, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the ruling could have “major implications for inferior officers and civil-service employees.” The majority, she said, “at best consigns these issues to years of future litigation.” As the Federal Circuit prepares to hear the Jackler and Jaroch case, legal experts like Edward Zelinsky suggest the government faces a high hurdle in defending these broad removal powers against established civil service statutes.
The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating removal protections for members of certain independent agencies capped a string of rulings that chipped away at a 1935 decision that allowed Congress to limit the president’s abi
The court’s conservative majority officially overruled that New Deal-era precedent in June.
Trump’s firing of Mary Comans from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, “The president can only be ‘personally responsible for everything’ in the Executive Branch if he is personally responsible for — and therefore able to freely remove — officials exercising those functions Ms.
A federal judge ruled in July that Comans’ firing was unlawful.
The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating removal protections for members of certain independent agencies capped a string of rulings that chipped away at a 1935 decision that allowed Congress to limit the president’s ability to fire those officials at will.
They are deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and precedent.
