A federal judge has blocked a decision made during the first Trump administration to remove two Democrat officials from a watchdog board overseeing government counterterrorism programs.

On Wednesday, the court ruled against the Trump administration’s 2020 removal of two members from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, saying the move threatened the board’s independence and role in checking executive actions, as Fox News reports.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton issued the ruling on Wednesday after reviewing a lawsuit brought by Travis LeBlanc and Edward Felten, who were ousted from the five-member board. The court’s decision prevents their removal and reinstates a sense of balance on the oversight body, which plays a critical role in examining the privacy implications of federal counterterrorism policy.

Claims of unlawful removal spark lawsuit

The controversy began in February 2020 when Trump fired all three Democrat members of the oversight board. Among them were LeBlanc and Felten, who later filed suit challenging the legality of their termination. A third Democrat member had just two days left in her term at the time and did not join the legal action.

In their legal filing, LeBlanc and Felten argued they were removed without cause, contrary to the board’s intended structure as a bipartisan, independent body. They asserted that such firings undercut the board’s legal mandate and opened the door to unchecked executive influence.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established by Congress to review federal counterterrorism efforts and ensure they comply with privacy-based legal standards. Its role includes reviewing surveillance programs and reporting findings to lawmakers and the public.

Judge emphasizes board's independence

In his opinion, Judge Walton ruled that allowing presidents to unilaterally dismiss board members would render the agency politically vulnerable and “beholden” to the executive. The board, he said, was intended to hold the government accountable, not serve as a partisan extension of any administration.

"To hold otherwise," Walton wrote, "would be to bless the President’s obvious attempt to exercise power beyond that granted to him by the Constitution." He warned that unchecked firings risk shielding federal counterterrorism actions from scrutiny and suppressing bipartisan input.

The judge's statements stressed that the oversight board must be able to function without fear of political reprisal. His decision reinforced the safeguards meant to preserve its objectivity in monitoring invasive government surveillance tactics or counterterrorism activities.

Board lost quorum in wake of firings

Following the removal of the Democrat appointees, only one Republican member remained on the board. This left the body without a quorum, seriously limiting its ability to function at a time when government surveillance and privacy were under intense public scrutiny.

The plaintiffs maintained that board members cannot be dismissed solely at the president’s discretion without undermining congressional intent. They pointed out that the lack of explicit dismissal protections did not equate to unlimited executive control. LeBlanc and Felten highlighted that several similar oversight entities include statutory safeguards against political firings, noting that these features are essential to ensuring independence and nonpartisan behavior.

White House defends Trump's authority

In response, attorneys representing the Trump administration contended that unless specific job protections are spelled out in law, the president retains authority to remove members serving on executive-related boards.

White House spokesman Harrison Fields stated that the Constitution grants the president power to dismiss personnel serving under his executive authority. “The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Fields said.

The administration cited examples of other federal entities where congressional statutes explicitly shield board members from removal without cause. In contrast, lawyers argued, the privacy board lacked such statutory protections.

Court decision's influence on future boards awaited

Though Walton's ruling pertains to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board specifically, its implications may extend well beyond this case. The decision highlights ongoing tensions between executive authority and independent oversight functions directed by Congress.

Legal analysts suggest the ruling could serve as precedent for how similar oversight bodies are protected from political interference. Independent boards serve a vital role in maintaining trust and transparency in sensitive government programs.

Going forward, the court’s intervention may prompt Congress to more clearly define employment protections for board members to prevent future disputes over their tenure.

Debates over constitutional balance persist

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established in the wake of 9/11, tasked with ensuring that U.S. counterterrorism strategies respect individual rights. Its bipartisan structure was intended to ensure diverse perspectives during review of activities such as surveillance or data collection.

Judge Walton’s ruling reinforces that this structure cannot function as intended if board members perceive their roles to be vulnerable to political retaliation. Reinstating LeBlanc and Felten marks a return to the board’s intended oversight capacity.

The case underscores ongoing debates about the balance of constitutional power and the appropriate limits of executive influence over independent watchdog authorities.