No Cause? No Problem. Supreme Court Foreshadows Political Purge

The Supreme Court appears ready to give the President what amounts to a blank check to fire a Senate-confirmed member of the National Labor Relations Board — no cause, no hearing, no due process. Just “You’re fired,” in an 11 p.m. email.

---

TL;DR: On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request to stay lower court rulings that had blocked President Trump from firing Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This stay means the President’s removal stands for now, despite federal law prohibiting at-will removal of NLRB Board members. The Court hinted it may overturn or narrow Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 precedent protecting agency independence.

📄 Read the Supreme Court’s May 22, 2025 order

---

What triggered this?

The President fired Gwynne Wilcox, a Senate-confirmed NLRB member, just months into her second five-year term. He didn’t follow the statutory process, which requires a hearing and a showing of “neglect of duty or malfeasance.” Instead, the White House emailed her late at night with a brief explanation: political disagreement and an assertion that the removal statute was unconstitutional.

She sued. A federal judge agreed the firing was unlawful. The judge called it a “blatantly illegal,” reaffirmed Humphrey’s Executor, and ordered her reinstated. A full panel of the D.C. Circuit kept it that way.

And then the Supreme Court stepped in.

What the Supreme Court just did

The Court granted a stay of the lower courts’ rulings, meaning Wilcox is once again off the Board while the case proceeds. It did so on two key grounds:

1. Executive power: The Court said the President is likely to win because the NLRB likely exercises “considerable executive power,” and the Constitution vests such power in the President. That might mean for-cause removal protections are unconstitutional here.
2. Balance of harms: The Court said the government would be more harmed by letting a removed official stay in office than the official would be by being sidelined.

But the majority also punted on the merits, saying it would be “better left for resolution after full briefing and argument” to decide whether this breaks with precedent.

What about Humphrey’s Executor?

That’s the elephant in the courtroom. Since 1935, Humphrey’s Executor has stood for the idea that Congress can require good cause before the President can fire members of certain independent agencies—including the NLRB. Lower courts had followed that precedent. The D.C. Circuit explicitly said that Humphrey’s remains binding law and applies directly to Wilcox’s case.

The Supreme Court’s majority didn’t even mention it.

The dissent pulled no punches

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, accused the majority of letting the President ignore longstanding precedent on a whim. She wrote that the emergency docket isn’t the place to gut nearly a century of law.

Her key point: Humphrey’s is still the law of the land. It says Congress can protect agency members like Wilcox from at-will removal. The President’s legal arguments don’t change that. Only the Court itself can overturn Humphrey’s — and it hasn’t. Yet.

Why this matters to employers

The NLRB is down to two members. It needs three to act. That means no ALJ appeals, rulemaking, or review of contested elections, among other things. Employers navigating union issues might get a reprieve—or find themselves in limbo.

More broadly, the decision signals that the Supreme Court may be poised to undercut the independence of not just the NLRB, but other multimember boards like the FTC, FCC, and even the Federal Reserve. If the President can fire Board members at will, their ability to act impartially vanishes.

One last thing

It took nearly 90 years for a President to try this. Now the Supreme Court seems poised to let it happen. If you’re an employer who cares about stability in labor policy, stay tuned. This case isn’t over. But the ground beneath independent agencies is already shaking.