Case: Harris v. Bessent
1:25-cv-00412 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: Feb. 11, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the Trump Administration's termination of a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
On February 11, 2025, Cathy Harris, a duly appointed and Senate-confirmed Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She sued President Trump, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Acting Chairman of the MSPB, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director and Deputy Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office to challenge her firing, which she alleged violated 5 U.S.C. § 1202, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Separation of Powers. Represented by private counsel, the complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorney fees. Simultaneously with the complaint, the plaintiff also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to pause her firing.
The key precedent in the case is the 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), in which the Supreme Court held that the president lacked the authority to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission whose tenure was protected by statute. In 2020, in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020), the Court cut back the Humphrey’s Executor rule, holding that the statute protecting the CFPB's single director—allowing his removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" unconstitutionally infringed the President's exercise of "the Executive power." But the Court expressly stated that Seila Law's holding did not reach for-cause removal protection for members of a multi-member commission, such as the MSPB.
The case was assigned to District Judge Rudolph Contreras. On Feb. 18, Judge Contreras granted the TRO, ordering the plaintiff's restoration as Chair of the MSPB until the court ruled whether a preliminary injunction should be issued; a hearing on that was set for March 3, 2025. 775 F.Supp.3d 86. On February 20, the government filed a district court motion for a stay of this order; Judge Contreras rejected a stay. 2025 WL 2576527. The government appealed, but while the appeal was being briefed, Judge Contreras granted the plaintiff summary judgment, an injunction, and a declaratory judgment on March 4, 2025. 775 F.Supp.3d 164. The court declared that Harris must remain a member of the MSPB and ordered that she continue to serve as a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board until her term expired pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1202, unless she was removed earlier for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office under that statute. It enjoined the defendants from treating the plaintiff as having been removed, denying or obstructing her access to any of the benefits or resources of her office, placing a replacement in her position, or otherwise recognizing any other person as a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board in Harris’s position. 2025 WL 679303.
The government immediately appealed, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated that appeal with the pending appeal of the TRO; oral argument was held on March 18, 2025, before Circuit Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Justin Walker. On March 28, 2025, each member of the panel issued a different opinion: Judges Walker and Henderson voted for granting the government's emergency motions for stay; Judge Millett dissented. 2025 WL 2576684. 2025 WL 980278.
The plaintiff sought en banc review and an administrative stay of the panel decision. On April 7, 2025, by a vote of 7-4, the en banc court of appeals vacated the panel’s stay, allowing the district court's injunction to take effect. 2025 WL 1021435. The court read the Supreme Court case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), to establish the lawfulness of “removal restrictions for governmental officials on multimember adjudicatory boards.” By a vote of 6-5, the court also denied the government’s request to stay the vacatur of the panel’s order for seven days to give the government time to seek Supreme Court relief. 2025 WL 1033740.
The government immediately sought a stay from the Supreme Court; Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay on April 9. 2025 WL 1063917. Then, on May 22, the Court granted a longer-lasting stay during the disposition of the case in the D.C. Circuit and any review in the Supreme Court. 145 S.Ct. 1415. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, dissented. The Court's unsigned majority opinion stated:
The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within . . . a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.
2025 WL 1464804.
Meanwhile, oral argument was held in the D.C. Circuit on May 16, 2025. On September 22, the Supreme Court notified the D.C. Circuit that it declined to grant certiorari prior to judgment.
On December 5, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the District Court's findings, ruling that Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members. Circuit Judge Katsas wrote the opinion for the Court. Under Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), Congress may restrict the President’s ability to remove principal officers who wield only quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial powers. But under Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), Congress may not restrict the President’s ability to remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power. The Court found that the NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature and different from the powers that Humphrey’s Executor deemed to be merely quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial.
The Court reasoned that the MSPB had "substantial [executive] power" for the reasons that follow:
- The CSRA empowers the MSPB to promulgate regulations “for the performance of its functions,” 5 U.S.C. § 1204(h), and “for the purpose of section 7521,” id. § 1305.
- The power to “unilaterally issue final decisions” is a significant executive power that was not present in Humphrey’s Executor.
- The MSPB has wide jurisdiction.
- The MSPB has a wide breadth of remedial authority.
Taking all of these together, the Court found that these powers well exceed the powers deemed to be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial in Humphrey’s Executor and the powers vested in the War Claims Commission. For these reasons, Congress may not restrict the President’s ability to remove MSPB members.
The plaintiff’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied on January 9, 2026. On March 23, 2026, the Supreme Court docketed this case. It is ongoing.
Relatedly, on June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Slaughter, overruling Humphrey’s Executor and holding that the President may remove FTC commissioners at will. Because Slaughter substantially altered the constitutional framework governing statutory removal protections for independent agency officials, and it will likely control the issues presented in this case.
Summary Authors
Benjamin Glicksman (7/10/2026)
Alaa Mustafa (2/23/2025)
Clearinghouse (5/22/2025)
Jeremiah Price (7/30/2025)
Claire Pollard (12/6/2025)
Related Cases
Wilcox v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Grundmann v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69631849/parties/harris-v-bessent/
Attorney, Daniel J. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Joshua Marc (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Michael S. (District of Columbia)
Akerman, Martin (District of Columbia)
Ali, Kathryn Marshall
Attorney, Daniel J. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Joshua Marc (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Michael S. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Eric Dean (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Mark Reiling (District of Columbia)
Graver, Harry (District of Columbia)
McMahon, Madeline (District of Columbia)
Akerman, Martin (District of Columbia)
Costello, David (District of Columbia)
Counsel, Elizabeth Wydra, (District of Columbia)
DeSousa, Jeffrey Paul (District of Columbia)
Fernandes, Kalikoonalani Diara
Fiorile, Joseph (District of Columbia)
Forrester, Nathan Andrew (District of Columbia)
Frazelle, Brian Rene (District of Columbia)
Gorod, Brianne Jenna (District of Columbia)
Hermandorfer, Whitney D. (District of Columbia)
Hirsch, Steven A. (District of Columbia)
Monson, Darrick (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69631849/harris-v-bessent/
Last updated July 22, 2026, 4:48 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 11, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A confirmed member of the Merit Systems Protections Board.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Treasury
Merit Systems Protection Board
Office of Management and Budget
President
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00412
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05037
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05055
Supreme Court of the United States 24A966
Supreme Court of the United States 25-1110
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Case Summary of Harris v. Bessent, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46124/ (last updated 12/6/2025).