https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/02/nlrb-gwynne-wilcox-sues-donald-trump-illegal.html

This week, the fight back against President Donald Trump’s power grabs over independent agencies is beginning in earnest. On Wednesday, former National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox sued Trump over his “unprecedented and illegal” removal of her from her position at the start of his new administration.

The move came one week after Trump fired Wilcox and NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. Removal of Abruzzo—while unfortunate for America’s workers—was expected and consistent with recent historical and judicial precedent. As she lays out in her lawsuit, however, board member Wilcox’s removal was unprecedented and unlawful, in contravention of decades of Supreme Court precedent.

The National Labor Relations Act makes crystal clear that board members, who serve as specialized judges for labor law, can only be removed from office for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause,” and only “upon notice and hearing.” The president made no pretense of accusing Wilcox of misconduct—she is a dedicated public servant with a sterling reputation—or providing her any opportunity for a hearing. Instead, the president summarily fired her because he disagreed with her decisions as a board member.

This extraordinary act, which was not only contrary to statute but clearly unlawful under a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent, has serious implications for the board. The immediate result is to cripple the agency—the board now lacks a quorum and cannot issue decisions, delaying justice for workers, employers, and unions with cases before it. Even after new members are appointed to secure a quorum, more chaos is likely to ensue. If Wilcox’s legal challenge succeeds, as it should, board decisions made in her absence could be later deemed invalid, potentially creating years of uncertainty for federal labor law. But the implications for the functioning of the federal government are even greater.

I served on the board for almost 10 years and learned well the unique and important role that adjudicators at independent agencies like the NLRB play within the government. Member Wilcox and I were appointed, with Senate approval, not to carry out the president’s orders, but to use our independent judgment and ensure that the mission of the law is served. While I was appointed to the NLRB by President Barack Obama, reappointed by President Trump during his first term, and named chair by President Joe Biden, I was not a part of any of their presidential administrations. I had almost no communication with any White House about any matter during the time I served—and certainly not about cases before the board. Instead, I was free to make decisions based on my expert knowledge of the law. When considering the arguments that parties presented to the board, I never had reason to fear that rejecting the position of a presidential ally—or even the presidentially appointed general counsel—would cost me my job. Member Wilcox and I did not serve at the pleasure of the president, and that was vital to our ability to serve the public.

Independent agencies play an invaluable role within the executive branch. They reflect Congress’ judgment that certain areas of critical government decisionmaking should be insulated from the day-to-day influence of the president. This is particularly important for agencies like the NLRB that decide legal cases. Parties that bring their disputes to the judges at these agencies deserve a fair hearing, and they deserve to have their disputes resolved by experts in the manner that the law—not the whims of presidential favoritism—dictates. Compromising the independence of these adjudicators is an attack on the authority of Congress to create such fair tribunals.

Just as importantly, it is a deep disservice to members of the public who deserve fair and reasoned decisionmaking from those charged with protecting their rights. At my own former agency, a worker who has been unlawfully fired deserves to have their case heard by an impartial tribunal, not a panel of judges who face termination for enforcing the law against companies owned by presidential allies or donors. Giving any president—but especially this president—that power would eviscerate the rule of law.

Mere days into the new administration, the pattern that has emerged is clear: From the mass firing of inspectors general to blatant retaliation against career civil servants, it is President Trump’s plan to eradicate all vestiges of independent thinking from the executive branch. Unfortunately, if history is any indication, if that long-standing insulation from politics is eliminated, the integrity of independent agencies may be virtually impossible to restore. For the sake of the country, it’s vital that the courts considering challenges to these unprecedented abuses of power are willing to do independent thinking of their own and restore respect for both Congress and the Constitution.