Removal Lawsuit Tracker

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

📊 2025 Removal Litigation Overview

9 Active Cases challenging unprecedented removals across federal agencies and independent institutions

📋 How to Read This Tracker

▼ Click for detailed case summary

D.C. CIRCUIT Click court badges to view dockets

ACTIVE Proceedings ongoing

CLOSED Proceedings closed

Active Litigation

Case & Entity	Filed	Court Dockets	Issue	Key Developments
Harris v. Bessent ▼ Merit Systems Protection Board	Feb 11, 2025	Supreme Court D.C. Circuit D.C. District Court	Whether the President can remove MSPB members without cause despite statutory "for cause" protections	Supreme Court granted stay, signaling likely reversal of Humphrey's Executor, which permits Congress to have for-cause protections for certain appointees
Case Summary: Board Member Harris filed suit on February 11, 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 was consolidated with Wilcox v. Trump. 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. The merits of the proceeding is pending before the D.C. Circuit, which held oral arguments on cross motions for summary judgment on May 16, 2025.
Wilcox v. Trump ▼ National Labor Relations Board	Feb 5, 2025	Supreme Court D.C. Circuit D.C. District Court	Whether the President can remove NLRB members without cause despite statutory protections	Supreme Court granted stay, signaling likely reversal of Humphrey's Executor, which permits Congress to have for-cause protections for certain appointees
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. The government appealed the PI and the order granting summary judgment to the D.C. Circuit. On appeal, this case was consolidated with Harris v. Bessent. 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. The merits of the proceeding is pending before the D.C. Circuit, which held oral arguments on cross motions for summary judgment on May 16, 2025.
Grundmann v. Trump ▼ Federal Labor Relations Authority	Feb 13, 2025	D.C. Circuit D.C. District Court	Whether the President can remove FLRA members without cause despite statutory protections	District court found removal unlawful and issued injunction. Government appealed injunction to D.C. Circuit and is seeking a stay of the injunction pending appeal in district court.
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 and more recent cases. 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	Whether the President can remove FTC members without cause despite statutory protections	Cross-motions for summary judgment argued. District court 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 D.C. District Court	Whether the President can remove board of congressionally-created institution despite statutory protections	Appeal of district court's grant of summary judgment/injunction and emergency motion for stay pending in D.C. Circuit.
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 22, the government appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On May 23, the district court denied the government's motion for a stay pending appeal. That same day, the government made an emergency motion in D.C. Circuit for a stay.
Aviel v. Gor ▼ Inter-American Foundation Recently Updated	Mar 17, 2025	D.C. Circuit D.C. District Court	Whether the President can appoint "acting" board members without Senate confirmation	On June 5, 2025, the D.C. Circuit denied the motion to stay the district court's injunction pending 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 of the injunction pending appeal, finding that Aviel was likely to prevail on the merits.
Brehm v. Marocco ▼ African Development Foundation Recently Updated	Mar 6, 2025	D.C. District Court	Whether the President can appoint "acting" board members without Senate confirmation	On June 10, 2025, the court ruled against Brehm, finding he lacked standing to challenge his removal.
Case Summary: 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 24, 2025, the White House informed board member Brehm that he had been removed by the President. Emails to the other board members were sent to incorrect email addresses. On February 28, 2025, these board members hired Brehm as the foundation president. That same day, the President of the United States purportedly appointed Pete Marocco as the Acting chair of the board. Marocco then held a board meeting comprising only himself, fired Brehm, and named himself as the foundation's president. Brehm argued that the foundation's 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. The government argued that the President has "inherent authority" under Article 2 of the Constitution to place someone on the Foundation's board. On March 11, the court denied Brehm's request for a restraining order. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed. On April 16, 2025, a motions hearing was held by the court. On June 10, 2025, the court ruled that the board that purportedly hired Brehm as president of the foundation had already been removed by the President of the United States and Brehm lacked standing to challenge his removal.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump ▼ Corporation for Public Broadcasting Recently Updated	Apr 29, 2025	D.C. District Court	Whether the President can remove CPB board members without cause	On June 8, 2025, the district court denied CPB's motion for 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 CPB 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	Whether the President must provide 30-day Congressional notice before IG removal	On March 27, 2025, the court held oral argument on cross motions for summary judgment.
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 9, 2025