A federal judge has reinstated a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) after she was removed by the president earlier this month. The decision, issued in a 21-page memorandum, found that the removal was likely unlawful and ordered the official to be reinstated for the time being.
The official in question, Cathy Harris, was dismissed without explanation on February 10. The removal letter offered no justification, raising questions about the legality of the action. Under federal law, MSPB members serve fixed terms and can only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The judge ruled that these statutory conditions do not allow for termination based solely on political differences.
The ruling emphasized that the MSPB is designed to operate with independence from political influence. This aligns with long-standing legal precedents that protect quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial agencies from executive overreach. The decision cited a landmark Supreme Court case from 1935, which established that presidents do not have unchecked authority to remove officials from such bodies unless specific statutory conditions are met.
The court explained that Congress deliberately structured the MSPB to function outside direct political control. Its responsibilities include reviewing federal employee appeals related to disciplinary actions, ensuring compliance with civil service regulations, and overseeing personnel policies. Because of this, the board’s independence is considered fundamental to maintaining a fair and impartial civil service system.
In discussing the broader implications of executive interference, the judge warned that allowing political influence over the MSPB would undermine the Civil Service Reform Act. The legislation was designed to ensure that federal employment decisions are made based on merit rather than political considerations. If high-ranking officials could manipulate the board, it would weaken protections against prohibited personnel practices such as discrimination, political coercion, and whistleblower retaliation.
The ruling also reinforced the idea that Congress, not the president, holds primary authority over the structure and function of the MSPB. The board’s fixed terms, nonpartisan nature, and adjudicatory role all contribute to its independence. The decision made clear that Congress intended to prevent presidents from influencing MSPB decisions on individual cases, further underscoring the limits of executive power in this context.
Harris, who was appointed to her current term in June 2022, is expected to serve until March 2028. The court’s order temporarily reinstates her as chair and blocks any attempts to remove her, deny her access to board resources, or install a replacement. The judge also indicated that a preliminary injunction hearing would be held in early March if Harris formally requests one.
This decision highlights the ongoing tension between executive authority and independent federal agencies. The court’s reasoning suggests that statutory protections for civil service bodies remain a strong barrier against political interference. The case may continue to develop as further legal arguments are presented in the coming weeks.
