Michelle Martin

Yeah, so Gwen Wilcox was a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Kathy Harris sat on the Merit Systems Protection Board. That's the board that hears federal employee complaints. And they both sued, saying Trump did not have the authority to fire them.

Yeah, so Gwen Wilcox was a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Kathy Harris sat on the Merit Systems Protection Board. That's the board that hears federal employee complaints. And they both sued, saying Trump did not have the authority to fire them.

Yeah, so Gwen Wilcox was a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Kathy Harris sat on the Merit Systems Protection Board. That's the board that hears federal employee complaints. And they both sued, saying Trump did not have the authority to fire them.

In fact, in creating their agencies, Congress wrote into law that members can only be fired for cause, like neglect of duty or malfeasance, But the Trump administration has been arguing that those restrictions on the president violate the Constitution. So that's the fight that's been playing out in the lower courts. And what have the lower courts said?

In fact, in creating their agencies, Congress wrote into law that members can only be fired for cause, like neglect of duty or malfeasance, But the Trump administration has been arguing that those restrictions on the president violate the Constitution. So that's the fight that's been playing out in the lower courts. And what have the lower courts said?

In fact, in creating their agencies, Congress wrote into law that members can only be fired for cause, like neglect of duty or malfeasance, But the Trump administration has been arguing that those restrictions on the president violate the Constitution. So that's the fight that's been playing out in the lower courts. And what have the lower courts said?

Well, there's already been a lot of ping-ponging back and forth, Michelle. Initially, two judges found Wilcox and Harris's firings not only violated the law, but also ignored Supreme Court precedent, a case called Humphrey's Executor from 90 years ago. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress could limit the president's power to remove members of independent agencies.

Well, there's already been a lot of ping-ponging back and forth, Michelle. Initially, two judges found Wilcox and Harris's firings not only violated the law, but also ignored Supreme Court precedent, a case called Humphrey's Executor from 90 years ago. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress could limit the president's power to remove members of independent agencies.

Well, there's already been a lot of ping-ponging back and forth, Michelle. Initially, two judges found Wilcox and Harris's firings not only violated the law, but also ignored Supreme Court precedent, a case called Humphrey's Executor from 90 years ago. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress could limit the president's power to remove members of independent agencies.

And so Wilcox and Harris actually went back to work for a while. But the government appealed. There was some back and forth. And last month, Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in. and allowed Trump to remove Wilcox and Harris again. And now the entire Supreme Court has weighed in. Yeah.

And so Wilcox and Harris actually went back to work for a while. But the government appealed. There was some back and forth. And last month, Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in. and allowed Trump to remove Wilcox and Harris again. And now the entire Supreme Court has weighed in. Yeah.

And so Wilcox and Harris actually went back to work for a while. But the government appealed. There was some back and forth. And last month, Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in. and allowed Trump to remove Wilcox and Harris again. And now the entire Supreme Court has weighed in. Yeah.

Yesterday, a majority of justices said they think Trump does have the authority to fire Wilcox and Harris, for now anyway. They wrote that the Constitution gives the president the power to fire at will those officials who help him carry out his duties, with only narrow exceptions. And they said Wilcox and Harris probably don't qualify for those exceptions.

Yesterday, a majority of justices said they think Trump does have the authority to fire Wilcox and Harris, for now anyway. They wrote that the Constitution gives the president the power to fire at will those officials who help him carry out his duties, with only narrow exceptions. And they said Wilcox and Harris probably don't qualify for those exceptions.

Yesterday, a majority of justices said they think Trump does have the authority to fire Wilcox and Harris, for now anyway. They wrote that the Constitution gives the president the power to fire at will those officials who help him carry out his duties, with only narrow exceptions. And they said Wilcox and Harris probably don't qualify for those exceptions.

That's right. It's a stay while the appeals court weighs the merits of the case. To be clear, the Supreme Court hasn't yet heard arguments of this case. This order came out of what's known as the emergency docket, which... conservatives have increasingly relied on to get quick decisions without a hearing. And this is something that liberal justice Elena Kagan brought up in her dissent.

That's right. It's a stay while the appeals court weighs the merits of the case. To be clear, the Supreme Court hasn't yet heard arguments of this case. This order came out of what's known as the emergency docket, which... conservatives have increasingly relied on to get quick decisions without a hearing. And this is something that liberal justice Elena Kagan brought up in her dissent.

That's right. It's a stay while the appeals court weighs the merits of the case. To be clear, the Supreme Court hasn't yet heard arguments of this case. This order came out of what's known as the emergency docket, which... conservatives have increasingly relied on to get quick decisions without a hearing. And this is something that liberal justice Elena Kagan brought up in her dissent.

She wrote, our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law, meaning Humphrey's executor. She said what's at stake here is not just someone's job.

She wrote, our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law, meaning Humphrey's executor. She said what's at stake here is not just someone's job.