WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump overstepped his authority when attempting to dismiss a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which safeguards federal employees against political retaliation and reprisals for whistleblowing. The judge’s decision protects Cathy Harris, nominated by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, from losing her position.
Cathy Harris sued to prevent her removal after receiving news from the White House that she would be terminated. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras determined that Trump, a Republican, lacked the legal power to oust her without cause, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct. The judge emphasized that Harris’s independence had been compromised by the dismissal attempt, warranting protection against future similar actions.
Harris, who joined the board in 2022, serves in a role critical to maintaining federal employment standards, and her term was intended to continue through March 2028. However, she was notified of her firing on February 12, prompting her legal case. A second member of the board, Raymond Limon, has since retired.
The court confirmed that under current laws, a president can only remove board members for specific reasons. Harris’s notification of termination lacked any such justification, according to her legal representatives. They stressed that this legal question is straightforward, asserting that higher courts have previously addressed similar issues.
While government lawyers contended the judiciary lacks jurisdiction to countermand a presidential replacement on the board, they argued the decision aligns with the president’s administration of the executive branch. They maintained that Trump’s decision was made in what he considered the American public’s best interest.
The Merit Systems Protection Board, consisting of three members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, issues approximately 5,000 rulings annually. Recent executive orders from Trump resulted in increased appeals, underscoring the board’s necessity for impartiality.
Given the significant caseload and recent influx of appeals due to executive actions, the attorneys noted that maintaining the board’s neutrality is crucial. Ensuring impartiality fosters trust among civil servants, the judiciary, and the public, asserting that the board must operate without influence or bias.
The board members serve on staggered seven-year terms, with no more than two members being from the same political party. This structure aims to promote a balanced and fair oversight of federal employment statutes.
