Published
October 21, 2026
On October 19, the Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holding that President Donald J. Trump could remove former member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Gwynne A. Wilcox from the NLRB despite statutory protections providing that Board members may be removed only for cause.
By letting that ruling stand, the Court effectively ended Wilcox’s challenge and left her removal in place permanently, making it at the same time another landmark moment in the ongoing debate over presidential control of independent federal agencies.
The dispute arose amid a broader reassessment of presidential authority over labor agencies. In 2021, President Joe Biden removed Trump-appointed NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb. That action was upheld as lawful because the General Counsel is generally considered an executive officer who serves at the President’s pleasure, despite nominally serving a five-year term.
The Wilcox case raised a much different question: whether members of the NLRB itself, traditionally considered part of an ostensibly independent agency, can also be removed at will by the President.
Wilcox argued that her removal violated longstanding Supreme Court precedent, particularly its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld statutory limits on a president’s ability to remove officials serving on independent commissions.
The Trump Administration responded that more recent separation-of-powers decisions, including Seila Law v. CFPB, recognize a broader presidential removal power and cast doubt on Congress’s ability to insulate officials who exercise significant executive authority from presidential control.
Earlier in the litigation, the Supreme Court allowed Wilcox’s firing to remain in effect while the case proceeded, stating that the government was likely to succeed in showing that the NLRB exercises “considerable executive power.”
Now that the Court has declined to review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, it has left intact a decision that significantly expands presidential authority over the NLRB and agencies like it.
For employers, the practical impact extends beyond Wilcox herself. The outcome strengthens presidential control over the NLRB and increases the likelihood that labor policy may shift more rapidly from one administration to the next.
More broadly, it signals continued judicial skepticism toward statutory protections that limit a president’s ability to remove leaders of agencies exercising executive power. The results moving forward could be interesting to say the least.
About the author
Sean P. Redmond
Sean P. Redmond is Vice President, Labor Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
