100percentfedup.com
Supreme Court Hands President Trump An Unexpected 6-3 Win In Major Case!
President Trump just scored a big win from the Supreme Court in a major case….and I have to label it as “unexpected” because I don’t trust anything coming from this Court recently.
Amy Coney Barrett appears to be John Roberts 2.0 and beer-guzzling Brett Kavanaugh has been equally disappointing.
But they just came through with a big win (albeit temporary) allowing President Trump to fire Biden Regime holdovers and heads of agencies to get the trash OUT of his Administration and out of the D.C. Deep State swamp!
BREAKING: Supreme Court Allows Trump to Fire Biden Holdovers Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris… For Now
READ: https://t.co/HOaztHxAXC pic.twitter.com/o48bZwk8Ci
— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) April 9, 2025
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled to allow Trump to fire Labor Board members in a 6-3 decision.
The court protected Trump’s right as President of The United States to remove the Biden-appointed officials. pic.twitter.com/z5L2oeDHmn
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) May 22, 2025
The ruling is a ruling on a temporary stay and not a final decision, but it certainly points in the right direction.
Here’s a quick summary of everything at stake here:
The case described is Harris v. Trump (sometimes also called Wilcox v. Trump), which concerns whether President Donald Trump has the constitutional authority to remove independent federal regulators—specifically Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)—without showing cause.
Key points of the case:
Wilcox and Harris were appointed by President Joe Biden and were set to serve until 2028.
President Trump sought to terminate them early, arguing they exercised executive power and thus should be removable at will.
Federal judges initially ruled that they could only be fired “for cause”, blocking Trump’s firings.
The Supreme Court intervened, issuing a 6–3 ruling favoring Trump, stating that the executive branch faces more harm by being forced to retain officials it no longer wants than removed officials face from losing their jobs.
The decision is not a final ruling on the merits, but rather a temporary pause (stay) that prevents the reinstatement of Wilcox and Harris while litigation continues.
The Trump administration argued that Humphrey’s Executor (1935)—a precedent limiting the president’s removal power—doesn’t apply in this case, especially for agencies that are not strictly multi-member, independent commissions.
The liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson) dissented, calling the court’s order “extraordinary.”
Broader Implications:
This case touches on separation of powers, specifically executive control over administrative agencies.
It raises questions about the limits of presidential authority to remove regulatory officials and re-examines the scope of Humphrey’s Executor.
So far, there doesn’t appear to be a final named Supreme Court opinion on this case (as of the language in your description); instead, this seems to be an interim order/stay by the Court pending full appellate review.
If a final ruling is issued, it could become a landmark case reshaping presidential control over the administrative state.
A win is a win!
Now let’s make it final!
You can read the full ruling here if you like:
FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 24A966DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. GWYNNE A. WILCOX, ET AL.ON APPLICATION FOR STAY[May 22, 2025]
The Government has applied for a stay of orders from the District Court for the District of Columbia enjoining the President’s removal of a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), respectively. The President is prohibited by statute from removing these officers except for cause, and no qualifying cause was given. See 29 U. S. C. §153(a); 5 U. S. C. §1202(d).
The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, see Art. II, §1, cl. 1, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents, see Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 215–218 (2020). The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument. The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty. See Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U. S. 571, 580 (2017) (per curiam) (“The purpose of . . . interim equitable relief is not to conclusively determine the rights of the parties, but to balance the equities as the litigation moves forward.” (citation omitted)). A stay is appropriate to avoid the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation.
Finally, respondents Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee. See Response of Wilcox in Opposition to App. for Stay 2–3, 27–28; Response of Harris in Opposition to App. for Stay 3, 5–6, 16–17, 36, 40. We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8.
The March 4, 2025, order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25–cv–412, ECF Doc. 39, and the March 6, 2025, order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25–cv–334, ECF Doc. 34, are stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
Legal experts believe based on this ruling that President Trump will prevail in the final ruling as well:
Based on the Supreme Court’s recent actions and the prevailing legal arguments, it appears that former President Donald Trump has a strong likelihood of prevailing in the final ruling of Trump v. Wilcox.
Supreme Court’s Indications
On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay allowing President Trump to remove Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) without cause, pending the outcome of ongoing litigation. The Court’s order stated that “the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power,” suggesting that these agencies may not be protected by the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which limits the President’s ability to remove certain officials without cause.
Legal Context
The central legal question revolves around whether the President can remove members of independent agencies like the NLRB and MSPB without cause. The Humphrey’s Executor decision upheld for-cause removal protections for officials of independent agencies that perform quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. However, the Supreme Court’s recent stay suggests a willingness to reconsider or narrow this precedent, especially if the agencies in question are deemed to exercise significant executive power.
Potential Outcomes
Given the Court’s current composition and its recent decisions favoring expanded executive authority, it’s plausible that the final ruling may further limit or overturn the Humphrey’s Executor precedent. Such a decision would grant the President greater discretion to remove officials from independent agencies, aligning with the unitary executive theory that advocates for consolidated executive power.