The U.S. Supreme Court has intervened to grant President Donald Trump’s emergency request to temporarily allow the dismissal of Democratic members from two federal boards.

This high court's decision arises amid legal battles over Trump's ability to remove board members, and the panel will see further arguments on the matter as litigation proceeds, as the Daily Caller reports.

In the early months of his presidency, Trump dismissed Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris from their respective positions on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Wilcox, who served the NLRB, still had four years remaining on her term. Harris, at the MSPB, had three years left when she was removed.

Early legal challenges arise

Both Wilcox and Harris challenged Trump's actions in lower courts, arguing against their dismissal. They employed legal avenues in an attempt to regain their positions instigated by these sudden removals.

In March, Wilcox secured a ruling from Judge Beryl Howell favoring her reinstatement. Around the same time, Judge Rudolph Contreras delivered a verdict on Harris's behalf, stipulating she could not be terminated “at will.” These rulings, however, faced swift pushback from Trump's administration.

By April, the Trump administration responded by filing an emergency application with the Supreme Court. Their goal was to contest the lower court decisions that had favored reinstating Wilcox and Harris.

Supreme Court takes temporary action

Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay on the matters, effectively pausing the lower court orders that sought to reinstate Wilcox and Harris.

Subsequently, a 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s administration to temporarily block the lower court orders. This action illustrated the high court's willingness to engage on matters pertaining to the executive branch's authority.

The decision, however, is not yet conclusive as it awaits formal discussions expected to proceed after full briefings and oral arguments next year. The situation remains fluid, with key determinations still pending a thorough vetting.

Executive power at issue

In its order explaining the stay, the Supreme Court cited significant concerns regarding the exercise of executive power. The court expressed that the boards involved perform duties that closely align with executive functions.

“The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power,” the court filing stated. It highlighted the importance of recognizing executive duties and roles in performance matters.

Yet, the Supreme Court withheld providing a definitive resolution on whether the NLRB or MSPB possess such executive capacities that justify Trump's actions. Instead, the Court emphasized the necessity of resolving these nuanced questions in the setting of full argument and briefings.

Balancing potential harms

The court's order also articulated a judgment regarding potential harm to both parties. While considering the implications of its decision, the Court stated the government faces more significant harm if former board officers continue performing executive functions.

On the other hand, the alleged wrongful removal might impose fewer immediate risks compared to allowing the continuation of an executive role under disputed circumstances.

“The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue,” the filing added. The Court is positioned to weigh the nature of harm during the forthcoming detailed hearings.

Further proceedings awaited

As the nation watches these legal developments unfold, the Supreme Court's interim decision marks a strategic check on presidential removals. The argument tackled by the Court pertains to executive boundaries, judicial interventions, and the balance of governmental powers.

Looking ahead, the full Supreme Court oral arguments scheduled for next year will be pivotal. It will seek to clarify the extent of presidential authority in appointing or dismissing federal board members.

The ultimate outcome could set new precedents in understanding the scope of executive power, impacting future administrations and the composition of various federal boards.