On Monday, a federal appeals court reinstated two Democratic labor board members who were terminated by President Donald Trump earlier this year.
In a 7-4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling blocked Trump's firing of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris.
'The Trump administration plans to immediately appeal the decision and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.'
A three-judge panel previously ruled 2-1 to allow Trump's terminations. The plaintiffs responded by requesting the appeals court hear the case en banc, meaning all appellate court judges were present. Monday's verdict reversed the previous decision.
The majority ruling cited Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 1935, and Wiener v. United States, 1958, stating that "the Supreme Court unanimously upheld removal restrictions for government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards."
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it was not overturning the precedent established in Humphrey's Executor and Wiener for multimember adjudicatory bodies," the ruling read. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it."
Judge Neomi Rao, one of the dissenting judges, wrote, "The Constitution vests all executive power in a single President."
"The President has both the power and the responsibility to supervise and direct Executive Branch officers," she continued. "To carry out this responsibility, the President must be able to remove officers at will."
"Nothing in Anglo-American history supports the injunctive relief granted by the district court and restored by the en banc majority," she wrote. "These orders effectively reappoint officers removed by the President and direct all other Executive Branch officials to treat the removed officers as if they were still in office. Such injunctive relief is beyond the scope of our equitable authority."
The two reinstated Democratic appointees can return to their positions, at least temporarily. The judges rejected the Trump administration's stay request, which would have prevented Wilcox and Harris from returning to their roles while the legal battle continues.
Wilcox told Axios she is "truly elated" about the latest ruling.
"I can now return to my position as a board member to issue decisions that are important to working people, unions, and employers of the country," Wilcox said.
Deepak Gupta, Wilcox's attorney, stated Monday, "The Court's decision today reaffirms 90 years of Supreme Court precedent that protects the independence of agencies like the NLRB and the Federal Reserve Board."
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, revealed that the administration plans to appeal the case, which would take it to the Supreme Court.
"The Constitution gives President Trump the power to remove personnel who exercise his executive authority," Fields said. "The Trump administration plans to immediately appeal the decision and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue."
Lawyers for Harris did not respond to USA Today's request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A government judge ruled on Friday in favor of Home Depot, dismissing a case brought by a former employee who was fired for refusing to remove a Black Lives Matter slogan from his work uniform.
The National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Home Depot last August after a Minnesota employee was fired for wearing a BLM slogan on his apron.
The NLRB complaint accused Home Depot of having "discriminated" against the employee "for raising issues of racial harassment with coworkers and managers and displaying a Black Lives Matter slogan on his apron," conduct the agency says is protected under the National Labor Relations Act.
Home Depot prohibits employees from wearing anything — whether on their Home Depot apron or otherwise — that promotes "causes or political messages unrelated to workplace matters."
The NLRB argued that messages related to BLM should not fall under the policy. In fact, the agency claimed the employee was engaging in "protected concerted activity," which the NLRB defines as discussing with co-workers how to improve work conditions and compensation, petitioning for better work hours, and discussing work-related problems with the employer, government, or media.
Administrative law Judge Paul Bogas has dismissed the case.
In his ruling, Bogas explained that "BLM messaging is not inherently concerted," and that BLM rhetoric lacks "an objective, and sufficiently direct, relationship to terms and conditions of employment."
"BLM messaging originated, and is primarily used, to address the unjustified killings of black individuals by law enforcement and vigilantes," Bogas explained. "To the extent the message is being used for reasons beyond that, it operates as a political umbrella for societal concerns and relates to the workplace only in the sense that workplaces are part of society."
TheBlaze reached out to Home Depot for comment, but the company did not immediately respond.
Last year, a spokeswoman for Home Depot said:
The Home Depot does not tolerate workplace harassment of any kind and takes all reports of discrimination or harassment seriously, as we did in this case. We disagree with the characterization of this situation and look forward to sharing the facts during the NLRB’s process.
Rulings by NLRB agency judges can be appealed to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., which is currently composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. From there, the matter can be settled in federal court.
Cassidy told reporters that the legislative package is not meant to 'tear up unions' or clash with the bills introduced by the Hawley, Moreno, and Marshall wing.
The Trump administration is targeting court interpretations that have stripped the president of full control over personnel, and policy, within federal agencies.
Senators should reject Schumer’s last-minute attempt to pack the NLRB and allow Trump to nominate pro-worker advocates to the open positions.
Most Americans have the horse sense to distance themselves from organized labor’s foibles. The government shouldn’t gainsay them.
SCOTUS sided with Starbucks in a challenge to a lower court ruling that tried to force the coffee chain to rehire fired employees.
The NLRB general counsel’s support for union 'salts' is emblematic of the successful union infiltration of federal institutions.
www.theblaze.com