A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled against former President Donald Trump’s bid to remove two Democratic officials from key federal labor boards, reinstating legal protections that limit presidential authority over independent agencies.

In a 7–4 decision, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel that had paused lower court orders preventing Trump from dismissing Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

This new ruling upholds longstanding laws that restrict presidents from arbitrarily removing members of certain independent federal bodies, unless for specific reasons like misconduct, neglect of duty, or inefficiency. The decision throws a wrench into Trump’s broader strategy of asserting greater White House control over traditionally autonomous agencies.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields criticized the court's action, arguing that the Constitution empowers the president to remove officials who perform executive functions. He said the Trump administration intends to challenge the decision in higher courts and is confident of an eventual win.

Legal experts suggest the case could escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially prompting a reevaluation of precedent set nearly a century ago that protects members of agencies like the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission from at-will dismissal by the president.

Cathy Harris, through her legal counsel, applauded the decision, noting that presidents historically respected Congress’s removal protections—until Trump broke that tradition. “Today the Court restores the constitutional equilibrium,” she said.

Attorney Deepak Gupta, representing Wilcox, said the outcome ensures the NLRB can continue safeguarding workers' rights without political interference. He called the ruling “a reaffirmation of 90 years of precedent” protecting agency independence.

The NLRB adjudicates disputes between private-sector employers and unions, while the MSPB handles appeals from federal employees facing disciplinary actions. Both boards are currently overwhelmed—MSPB has received over 8,400 new appeals since Trump returned to office in January, an amount typically seen over a two-year period.

Trump removed both Wilcox and Harris shortly after taking office—a first in U.S. presidential history for these boards. In response, the officials filed lawsuits, accusing him of violating the very statutes designed to shield their positions from political firings.

While the Trump administration admitted the firings breached existing laws, it argued that such removal protections violate constitutional principles by limiting the president's executive authority. A previous D.C. Circuit panel had sided partially with Trump, saying these job protections may unlawfully interfere with presidential powers.

However, the full court disagreed, pointing to Supreme Court rulings from 1935 and 1958 that upheld similar protections for independent agency members focused on adjudication rather than executive policymaking.

All seven judges who voted against Trump’s removals were appointed by Democratic presidents, while the four dissenting judges were appointed by Republicans. The ideological split highlights the growing legal and political significance of Trump’s push to assert control over independent federal institutions.