RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from CBS News — Top — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 2 sources
Washington \u2014 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 at will.But as the high court considered the legality of Congress\u0027 efforts to shield those officials from political pressure, legal fights arising from President Trump\u0027s attempts to fire an array of other federal workers \u2014 from Justice Department lawyers to immigration judges to FBI agents\u00a0\u2014 have been moving through the federal courts.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."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 system of administrative governance," Nicholas Bednar, a University of Minnesota law professor who has studied the civil service, told CBS News.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 \u2014 those considered "inferior officers," as well as employees \u2014 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 power. "Inferior" executive branch officials may be appointed by the president or the head of a department, and they\u0027re generally supervised by principal officers, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.Mr. Trump\u0027s 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 in February 2025. While cases before appeals courts are typically heard first by three-judge panels, the Federal Circuit in June granted Jackler and Jaroch\u0027s request for its full slate of judges to consider their case from the outset \u2014 an indication that it recognizes the importance of the dispute.\u00a0"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.Jackler and Jaroch\u0027s case landed before the Federal Circuit after the Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears appeals from federal employees of adverse actions, ruled in favor of the Justice Department. In a little-noticed March decision, the board found that "no entity, including Congress or the Board, may place restrictions" on the president\u0027s removal authority, "for doing so would infringe upon the president\u0027s 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."The government\u0027s argument in Jackler is potentially so sweeping it would mean the president could fire every single civil servant at will," Nathaniel Zelinsky, a lawyer representing Jackler and Jaroch, told CBS News. "The issue in this case is about whether this country can have civil service laws at all or instead, whether the president can fire whomever he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason."He continued: "If the president is right in this case, it doesn\u0027t mean that just Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch can be fired at will. 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."Trump\u0027s power to fire principal officersThe decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board came as the Supreme Court was considering the case Trump v. Slaughter, which arose out of the president\u0027s firing of Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter was ousted from her role in March 2025, soon after Jackler and Jaroch lost their jobs as immigration judges.In a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court\u0027s conservative majority said Congress cannot "saddle" the president with officials "with whom he cannot work.""Subordinates who exercise the President\u0027s power are subject to removal by him," Roberts wrote. "Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."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 \u2014 typically instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.While that case before the Supreme Court solely involved the president\u0027s ability to remove principal officers, legal scholars noted that the language in Roberts\u0027 opinion can be read to apply beyond those officials."\u0027What text, history and structure settle, our precedent confirms: the president may remove his subordinates at will.\u0027 That\u0027s pretty broad," said Joel Alicea, a law professor at Catholic University, quoting Roberts\u0027 decision. "That language does not seem to limit itself to principal officers. The opini...
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.