An appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump can fire two board members of independent agencies handling labor issues from their respective posts in the federal government.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to lift orders blocking the Trump administration from removing Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox.

On March 4, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that Trump illegally tried to fire Harris. Two days later, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Trump did not have the authority to remove Wilcox.

The Justice Department asked the appellate court to suspend those orders while they appeal the decisions.

President Joe Biden nominated Harris to the MSPB in 2021 and nominated Wilcox to a second five-year term as an NLRB member in 2023.

Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, said the administration likely will succeed in showing that the statutory removal protections for NLRB and MSPB members are unconstitutional.

“The Government has also shown that it will suffer irreparable harm each day the President is deprived of the ability to control the executive branch,” Walker wrote.

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush, wrote an opinion concurring with Walker. Henderson said she agrees with Walker on many of the “general principles” about the contours of presidential power under the Constitution.

Judge Patricia Millett, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote a dissenting opinion. She said her two colleagues on the case “rewrite controlling Supreme Court precedent and ignore binding rulings of this court, all in favor of putting this court in direct conflict with at least two other circuits.”

“The stay decision also marks the first time in history that a court of appeals, or the Supreme Court, has licensed the termination of members of multimember adjudicatory boards statutorily protected by the very type of removal restriction the Supreme Court has twice unanimously upheld,” Millett wrote.

Government lawyers argued that Trump had the authority to remove both board members. In Wilcox’s case, they said Howell’s “unprecedented order works a grave harm to the separation of powers and undermines the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution.” They also argued that MSPB members like Harris are removable “at will” by the president.

Wilcox’s attorneys said Trump couldn’t fire her without notice, a hearing or identifying any “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” on her part. They argued that the administration’s “only path to victory” is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to “adopt a more expansive view of presidential power.”

Harris’ attorneys claimed the administration was asking the appeals court to ignore Supreme Court precedent.

“Make no mistake: The government’s radical theory would upend the law,” they wrote. “It would jeopardize not only this board, but also the Federal Reserve Board and other critical entities, like the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

The five-member NLRB lacked a quorum after Wilcox’s removal. The three-member MSPB enforces civil rights law in the workplace.

In a federal courtroom Monday afternoon, a significant legal battle unfolded as The Associated Press (AP) pressed its case against three staff members of President Donald Trump's administration. The news agency is seeking to reverse the Trump administration’s decision to bar AP journalists from attending presidential events, including access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other areas traditionally part of the White House press pool.

The crux of the dispute lies in the AP's refusal to adopt President Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America." The AP insists on using the traditional "Gulf of Mexico" terminology, explaining that its audience is global and that the body of water extends beyond U.S. territory. Nonetheless, the news agency has acknowledged Trump's renaming, emphasizing its stance as a matter of journalistic integrity and global relevance.

At the heart of the AP’s argument is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards freedom of speech. The White House, on the other hand, contends that access to the president is a privilege, not a right. Trump himself told reporters just last week, "We're going to keep them out until such time as they agree that it's the Gulf of America."

AP’s legal team claims that the ban, which appears to have originated directly from President Trump, is an infringement on their First Amendment rights. Gabe Rottman, a senior attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the AP, described the situation as "viewpoint discrimination." He further emphasized that this type of discrimination is particularly prohibited under the First Amendment, calling it “poison to a free society."

Judge McFadden, who presided over the hearing, expressed significant concern, raising several questions that pointed to the fact that the ban could indeed be seen as an infringement on freedom of speech, making the case a landmark one for press freedom.

The budget office under President Donald Trump reversed a memo on Wednesday that had temporarily frozen spending on federal loans and grants, just two days after it caused widespread confusion and legal disputes across the nation.

The memo, issued Monday by the Office of Management and Budget, had alarmed states, schools, and organizations dependent on billions of dollars in federal funding. Administration officials initially claimed the pause was necessary to review whether spending aligned with Trump’s executive orders on issues such as climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

However, by Wednesday, officials issued a brief notice rescinding the original memo. This reversal highlighted the challenges Trump faces in swiftly reshaping the government, even with unified control of Washington.

Administration officials maintained that despite the confusion, their actions had achieved the intended goal of reminding federal agencies of their obligation to comply with Trump’s executive orders. Still, the vaguely worded directive, temporary freeze, and subsequent cancellation left many organizations uncertain and anxious about what might come next.

Nourishing Hope, a Chicago-based organization operating food pantries, home meal delivery, and an online food market, relies on federal funding for about 20% of its food budget. CEO Kellie O’Connell expressed that the primary challenge when the memo surfaced was obtaining clear and accurate information to plan for the months ahead.

O’Connell noted that while her organization could manage for a few weeks without federal funds, the broader concern was the potential reduction or elimination of assistance programs like food stamps, which would significantly increase demand for their services. “If that were to significantly diminish or get eliminated, it would be nearly impossible for the charity food system to step up,” she said. “It would be potentially catastrophic for our communities.”

On Tuesday, Trump administration officials clarified that programs providing direct assistance to Americans, such as Medicare, Social Security, student loans, and food stamps, would not be affected by the freeze. However, they faced difficulties in providing consistent and clear information. For instance, officials initially hesitated to confirm whether Medicaid was exempt before later clarifying that it was.

The White House’s abrupt shift in direction surprised Congress, including Trump’s Republican allies, who had defended the administration during the brief controversy. The episode underscored the complexities and limitations of implementing rapid, sweeping changes to federal spending and policy.