A federal judge has permanently reinstated a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) after ruling that her removal by President Donald Trump was unlawful. Cathy Harris, a Joe Biden appointee whose term extends to 2028, was informed of her dismissal in an email from an assistant on February 10, stating she was “terminated, effective immediately.” However, federal law requires more than a simple notice of dismissal for the early termination of such officials.
In a detailed 35-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras determined that the protections in place for members of the MSPB are constitutional. The court found that federal law prevents a president from removing members of the board without cause. Because Harris had not been accused of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office the only conditions under which removal is permitted the attempt to fire her was ruled unlawful.
Previously, a temporary restraining order allowed Harris to remain in her role while the case proceeded. The latest ruling grants a permanent injunction, meaning that unless overturned by a higher court, Harris will continue in her position. The decision follows long-standing legal precedent, particularly a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that established protections for members of independent, quasi-judicial agencies.
The case highlights a broader debate over presidential authority and the independence of agencies that oversee civil service protections. The administration argued that the Supreme Court had recently found similar for-cause removal protections unconstitutional in cases involving single-director agencies. However, the court distinguished those cases from the MSPB, which is a multimember body. It ruled that the board’s primary function adjudicating employment disputes does not constitute substantial executive power.
The administration also contended that the MSPB’s powers were too significant for its members to retain such protections. This argument was rejected, with the court emphasizing that allowing political interference in the board would undermine the purpose of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The ruling reaffirmed that Congress has the authority to establish fixed terms and conditions for removal in independent agencies.
Additionally, the Department of Justice argued that the court lacked the authority to block the removal. However, the judge dismissed this claim, pointing to Supreme Court precedent affirming that courts can enjoin executive actions that violate the law. The decision ultimately concluded that the president’s attempt to remove Harris exceeded his authority and violated federal law.
