Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Reviews Trump’s Firing of NLRB Member Lauren Wilcox
By Drooid · · How we work
Supreme Court Review of the NLRB Dismissal
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the legality of President Donald Trump’s removal of Lauren Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The case follows the Court’s earlier June ruling that upheld Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Both decisions challenge the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent, which had allowed Congress to protect leaders of certain independent agencies from at-will presidential removal.
Legal Background and Precedent
Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the NLRB, was appointed to a second five-year term in 2023 by former President Joe Biden. Trump moved to dismiss her about a week after beginning his second presidential term, prompting Wilcox to file a lawsuit. In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that a federal statute shielded NLRB officials from removal without cause, rejecting Trump’s argument that the Constitution granted him that authority. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Howell’s decision in a 2-1 vote in December 2025, leading Wilcox to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Timeline of Litigation
- 2023: Wilcox receives second NLRB term appointment.
- Early 2025: Trump initiates removal of Wilcox shortly after inauguration.
- March 2025: Judge Howell upholds statutory protection for NLRB officials.
- December 2025: D.C. Circuit reverses Howell, favoring the president’s removal power.
- June (year unspecified): Supreme Court backs Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, signaling a shift in the Court’s stance on agency independence.
- Current: Supreme Court agrees to hear Wilcox’s appeal.
Implications for Agency Independence
Legal scholars note that the Court’s willingness to revisit Humphrey’s Executor could broaden presidential authority over agencies traditionally insulated from political pressure. If the Court sides with the administration, it may set a new standard allowing presidents to replace independent-agency leaders without cause, potentially reshaping the balance of power between the executive branch and regulatory bodies. Conversely, a decision favoring Wilcox would reaffirm statutory protections and preserve the existing framework of agency autonomy.