Removal Lawsuit Tracker

Monitoring ongoing federal litigation challenging the Trump Administration's attempts to remove members of independent boards, commissions, and other entities

Active Litigation

<!--

████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ HARRIS V. BESSENT ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ -->

<tr style="cursor: pointer;" onclick="toggleDetails('harris-details')">
        <td style="padding: 1rem; border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(180, 83, 9, 0.2); vertical-align: top;">
            <div style="font-weight: 600; color: #92400e; font-size: 1rem;">Harris v. Bessent <span style="font-size: 0.8rem; color: #6b5b47;">▼</span></div>
            <div style="font-size: 0.85rem; color: #6b5b47; font-style: italic; margin-top: 0.2rem;">Merit Systems Protection Board</div>
        </td>
        <td style="padding: 1rem; border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(180, 83, 9, 0.2); vertical-align: top; font-size: 0.85rem; color: #6b5b47;">Feb 2025</td>
        <td style="padding: 1rem; border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(180, 83, 9, 0.2); vertical-align: top;">
            <div style="font-size: 0.8rem; line-height: 1.4;">
                <div style="margin-bottom: 0.8rem;">
                    <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=24A966" style="text-decoration: none;">
                        <span style="display: inline-block; padding: 0.25rem 0.6rem; border-radius: 4px; font-size: 0.75rem; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px; background: #dc2626; color: white; cursor: pointer;">Supreme Court</span>
                    </a>
                    <div style="margin-left: 0.5rem; margin-top: 0.3rem; font-size: 0.75rem;">Stay granted (May 22)</div>
                </div>
                <div style="margin-bottom: 0.8rem;">
                    <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69658769/cathy-harris-v-scott-bessent/" style="text-decoration: none;">
                        <span style="display: inline-block; padding: 0.25rem 0.6rem; border-radius: 4px; font-size: 0.75rem; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px; background: #22c55e; color: white; cursor: pointer;">D.C. Circuit</span>
                    </a>
                    <div style="margin-left: 0.5rem; margin-top: 0.3rem; font-size: 0.75rem;">Merits pending (argued May 16)</div>
                </div>
                <div>
                    <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69631849/harris-v-bessent/" style="text-decoration: none;">
                        <span style="display: inline-block; padding: 0.25rem 0.6rem; border-radius: 4px; font-size: 0.75rem; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px; background: #dc2626; color: white; cursor: pointer;">D.C. District Court</span>
                    </a>
                    <div style="margin-left: 0.5rem; margin-top: 0.3rem; font-size: 0.75rem;">Summary judgment & preliminary injunction granted</div>
                </div>
            </div>
        </td>
        <td style="padding: 1rem; border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(180, 83, 9, 0.2); vertical-align: top; font-size: 0.85rem; color: #374151;">Whether the President can remove MSPB members without cause despite statutory "for cause" protections</td>
        <td style="padding: 1rem; border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(180, 83, 9, 0.2); vertical-align: top; font-size: 0.85rem; color: #374151; font-weight: 500;">Supreme Court granted stay, signaling likely reversal of <em>Humphrey's Executor</em> protections</td>
    </tr>
    <tr id="harris-details" style="display: none; background: rgba(255, 251, 235, 0.9);">
        <td colspan="5" style="padding: 1rem; border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(180, 83, 9, 0.2); font-size: 0.9rem; line-height: 1.5;">
            <strong>Case Summary:</strong> Board Member Harris filed suit on February 22, 2025, after being removed by President Trump without cause. Under federal law, MSPB members can only be fired "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The D.C. district court issued a preliminary injunction (PI) reinstating Harris and finding for Harris on summary judgment on the merits. The government appealed the PI and the order granting summary judgment to the D.C. Circuit. On appeal, this case has been combined with <em>Wilcox v. Trump</em>. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court on the stay matter on March 28, 2025. Harris and Wilcox appealed the issuance of a stay to the full D.C. Circuit, which reversed the panel on April 7. The government then appealed the denial of a stay to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the stay on May 22, 2025, finding that the government was likely to prevail on the merits.
        </td>
    </tr>

<! data-preserve-html-node="true"-- ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ WILCOX V. TRUMP ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ -->

<! data-preserve-html-node="true"-- ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ GRUNDMANN ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ --> <! data-preserve-html-node="true"-- ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ SLAUGHTER ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ --> <! data-preserve-html-node="true"-- ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ U.S INSTITUTE OF PEACE ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ --> <! data-preserve-html-node="true"-- ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ --> <! data-preserve-html-node="true"-- ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ --> <! data-preserve-html-node="true"-- ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ --> <! data-preserve-html-node="true"-- ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ INSPECTORS GENERAL (STORCH V. HEGSETH) ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ -->

Case & Entity	Filed	Court Status	Issue	Key Developments
Wilcox v. Trump ▼ National Labor Relations Board	Feb 5, 2025	Supreme Court Stay granted (May 22) D.C. Circuit Combined with Harris case D.C. District Court Summary judgment & preliminary injunction granted	Whether the President can remove NLRB members without cause despite statutory protections	Supreme Court granted stay, combined with Harris case
Case Summary: Board Member Wilcox filed suit on February 5, 2025, after being removed by President Trump without cause. Under federal law, NLRB members can be fired only in cases of "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause," and only after "notice and hearing." The D.C. district court issued a preliminary injunction (PI) reinstating Wilcox and finding for Wilcox on summary judgment on the merits. On appeal, this case has been combined with Harris v. Bessent. The Supreme Court granted the stay on May 22, 2025, finding that the government was likely to prevail on the merits, concluding that NLRB members exercise significant executive authority making for-cause removal protections unconstitutional under recent cases narrowing Humphrey's Executor.
Grundmann v. Trump ▼ Federal Labor Relations Authority	Feb 13, 2025	D.C. Circuit Appeal pending (filed May 8) Stay motion pending D.C. District Court Summary judgment & permanent injunction granted	Whether the President can remove FLRA members without cause despite statutory protections	District court found removal unlawful; government appealed injunction
Case Summary: On February 13, 2025, Federal Labor Relations Authority member Grundmann filed suit after being removed from office. Under federal law, FLRA members may be removed by the President "only upon notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." On March 12, 2025, the district court found that the removal was unlawful and the for-cause removal protections were constitutional under the 1935 Humphrey's Executor case. The court also issued an injunction against the FLRA chair to effectively reinstate Grundmann. On May 8, 2025, the government appealed the injunction and grant of summary judgment to the D.C. Circuit. On May 27, 2025, the government filed a motion to stay the court's order pending appeal.
Slaughter v. Trump ▼ Federal Trade Commission	Feb 13, 2025	D.C. District Court Cross-motions pending Hearing held May 20	Classic test of Humphrey's Executor - FTC commissioner removal without cause	Cross-motions for summary judgment heard; decision pending
Case Summary: On February 13, 2025, Federal Trade Commission members Slaughter and Bedoya filed suit after being removed from office. Under federal law, FTC members may be removed by the President only "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Cross-motions for summary judgment are pending. On May 20, 2025, the court held a hearing on the cross-motion, but no decision has been issued as of yet.
U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson ▼ U.S. Institute of Peace	Mar 18, 2025	D.C. Circuit Appeal filed May 21 Stay denied May 23 D.C. District Court Summary judgment granted - found takeover unlawful	Whether the President can remove board of congressionally-created institution despite statutory protections	District court called takeover "gross usurpation of power"; stay denied
Case Summary: The conduct in this case was so egregious that it warrants detailed description. The facts of this case can be fairly characterized as a hostile takeover. Government agents used force and intimidation to sneak into the U.S. Institute of Peace's grand headquarters, eject the institute's leadership, and gain control over the institute's computer system. Newly installed management then fired most employees and transferred its assets (money and the headquarters building) to the government. The institute's previous leadership group sued on behalf of themselves and the institute on March 18, 2025. On May 19, 2025, the court ruled on cross motions for summary judgment, finding that the government takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace was "a gross usurpation of power." The court granted declaratory relief that actions taken by the government-installed leaders were "unlawful, null and void, and without legal effect." On May 21, the government appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On May 23, the court denied the government's motion for a stay pending appeal.
Aviel v. Gor ▼ Inter-American Foundation	Mar 17, 2025	D.C. Circuit Stay denied June 5 D.C. District Court Preliminary injunction granted April 4	Whether the President can appoint "acting" board members without Senate confirmation	Court: "problem of President's own making" - stay denied on appeal
Case Summary: On February 24, 2025, the Board of the IAF was informed that President Trump had removed them from their positions. On February 26, 2025, the White House informed the IAF's president that she had been removed as well and that Pete Marocco had been appointed to the board under "inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution." Marocco held a purported board meeting to make himself the President/CEO, and proceeded to fire IAF staff and cancel contracts and grants. After filing this action March 17, 2025, IAF president Aviel sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) on behalf of herself and the foundation. On April 4, 2025, the court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff was likely to show that the President of the United States did not have the authority to terminate her directly, since she is an "inferior officer," and that the President did not have the authority to appoint Marocco as an acting IAF board member under any statute or the Constitution. The government sought a stay of the PI and, on April 6, 2025, appealed the PI to the D.C. Circuit. On June 5, 2025, a panel of the D.C. Circuit denied the motion for a stay pending appeal, finding that Aviel was likely to prevail on the merits.
Brehm v. Marocco ▼ African Development Foundation	Mar 6, 2025	D.C. District Court Motions hearing held April 16 Decision pending	Whether the President can appoint "acting" board members without Senate confirmation	Similar facts to IAF case; court heard arguments on government's "inherent authority" claim
Case Summary: The government's conduct in this case involved such subterfuge and intimidation that it warrants detailed description. On March 6, 2025, this case was filed by the President/CEO of the African Development Foundation (Brehm). In February 2025, government representatives used subterfuge and force to gain access to Foundation systems with the intent to essentially dismantle the entity. On February 28, 2025, the White House purported to appoint Pete Marocco as the Acting Chair of the board despite the absence of statutory authority to do so. The pre-existing board then appointed Brehm, who had recently been dismissed as a member of the Board by the President, as the President and CEO. According to the Foundation, its organic statute provides that only the board can hire and fire the President/CEO and the only way for the President to place someone on the board is through appointment and Senate confirmation. On March 11, the court denied the plaintiff's request for a restraining order. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed. The government argues that the President has "inherent authority" under Article 2 of the Constitution to make changes to the Foundation's board. On April 16, 2025 a motions hearing was held by the court, but no order has been issued yet.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump ▼ Corporation for Public Broadcasting	Apr 29, 2025	D.C. District Court TRO briefing complete Decision pending	Whether the President can remove CPB board members without cause	On June 8, 2025, the district court denied CPB's emergency injunctive relief.
Case Summary: On April 29, 2025, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and fired board members filed suit against Trump Administration officials, seeking a declaration that their purported firings by the President are "of no legal effect given that the President has no power to remove or terminate CPB's Board members" and a temporary restraining order (TRO). After briefing, on June 8, 2025, the Court denied CPB's request. In addition to not finding irreparable harm, the court found that CBP did not carry its burden of showing it would prevail on the merits. Specifically, CPB's arguments that its authorizing statute and D.C. nonprofit law limited the President's removal authority did not meet that burden.
Storch v. Hegseth ▼ Inspector General Act	Feb 12, 2025	D.C. District Court Cross-motions argued March 27 Decision pending	Whether the President must provide 30-day Congressional notice before IG removal	17 IGs fired without required Congressional notice; summary judgment pending
Case Summary: On January 24, 2025, the White House sent seventeen inspectors general (IGs) emails notifying them of the President's removal of them from their positions. Under the Inspector General Act, when the President removes an inspector general, he must provide Congress with 30-day notice. The notice to Congress was not provided with respect to any of the fired IGs. On February 12, 2025, some of the fired IGs filed suit seeking reinstatement, loss of pay, and a temporary restraining order and other injunctive relief on the basis that the President did not follow the legal procedure. On March 27, 2025, the court held oral argument on cross motions for summary judgment. President Trump has since nominated individuals to fill some of these IG positions.

Last Updated: June 7, 2025 | Report Updates or Corrections
This tracker focuses on cases with significant constitutional implications for executive power and government oversight.