Staff Reports
In a bold move reminiscent of a college football coach clearing house after a disappointing season, President Trump has taken action to trim the fat in the federal workforce by letting go of several employees who may have overstayed their welcome. As part of a broader strategy to streamline government and increase accountability, Trump’s administration is pushing back against federal workers who protest their dismissals with frivolous lawsuits—a classic example of government employees attempting to defend the indefensible.
The crux of the matter lies in an almost 90-year-old Supreme Court decision that has become a shield for federal employees clinging to their jobs. It all started with the case Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which infamously guaranteed job security to those in so-called “independent” agencies unless they could be shown to have committed some grievous error. The notion that these agencies somehow operate untouched by the will of the executive branch flies in the face of common sense and the very premise of a functioning government.
Trump Justice Department files for emergency relief with the Supreme Court:
"This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will."https://t.co/rjAbn7VXz5
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) February 17, 2025
In this little nugget of legal history from 1935, the Supreme Court ruled against President Franklin D. Roosevelt firing a political opponent from the Federal Trade Commission. Fast forward almost a century later, and this outdated ruling is now being used by embattled employees to resist Trump’s attempts to manage the executive branch effectively. The audacity!
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has informed the Senate Democrats that the Trump administration plans to urge the Supreme Court to reconsider this longstanding precedent. The Justice Department argues that allowing insulated employees to remain in their posts prevents the president from properly supervising the executive branch. It’s about time someone stood up to the bureaucratic bullies and reminded them that a president should have the authority to hire and fire as needed—especially when those in question are obstructing the laws he is elected to enforce.
With lawsuits sprouting like weeds from disgruntled former officials like Gwynne Wilcox and Hampton Dellinger, it is clear that the stakes are high. Wilcox argues her late-night dismissal was a grave violation of the National Labor Relations Act, while Dellinger is using the same outdated precedent to challenge his termination. Their cases, while being framed as important testaments to independence, might better be seen as desperate grasps at relevance when faced with the inexorable tide of change in federal governance.
As these lawsuits head toward the Supreme Court, the situation could provide an opportunity to finally put to rest the archaic ruling of Humphrey’s Executor. Justices like Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have already expressed doubts about this precedent, suggesting that it poses a “direct threat” to the constitutional structure. If Trump’s legal team gets their way, we may finally see the restoration of executive authority needed to keep the government anchored and efficient rather than adrift in a sea of red tape.
