Federal Judge Orders Reinstatement of MSPB Chairwoman Cathy Harris
In a significant legal turnaround, a federal judge has ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris, the former chairwoman of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), who was removed from her position by former President Donald Trump.
The Dismissal of Cathy Harris
Cathy Harris, a Democrat who had been appointed to the MSPB by President Joe Biden, served in this role until her unexpected termination on February 10 by then-President Trump. She was dismissed amidst allegations of a systemic effort by the Trump administration to replace certain independent government watchdogs with politically aligned figures.
Following her dismissal, Harris wasted no time in filing an appeal. She contended that both Trump and other government officials lacked the authority to terminate her position. Her argument was bolstered by a key piece of evidence—a lack of justification in the email outlining her dismissal, which she claimed did not provide any reasons for cause.
Legal Foundations of the Appeal
Harris’s legal team pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established limits on a president’s ability to remove certain agency heads. However, today’s Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, has shown inclinations toward potentially overturning this precedent.
On March 20, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, who serves in the District of Columbia, ruled in Harris’s favor, recognizing federal law’s stipulation that members of the MSPB could be removed from office only for specific reasons: inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Contreras pointed out that Trump’s abrupt termination of Harris lacked any explanation, which violated these legal protections.
Implications of the Court’s Decision
In his ruling, Judge Contreras emphasized, “Harris has undoubtedly experienced an injury to this independence in her capacity as a member of the MSPB following the President’s attempt to terminate her without cause.” Furthermore, he ordered that Harris would continue to serve on the board until her term expires, barring any legitimate cause for her removal as defined by federal law.
Harris’s position on the MSPB is critical, as it serves as the main agency through which federal employees file complaints regarding wrongful termination or other workplace grievances. Her reinstatement highlights the importance of maintaining independence in oversight entities, especially amid a politically charged environment.
Context of the Reinstatement
Upon his ascension to the presidency, Trump appointed Henry Kerner, a Republican, as acting chair of the MSPB. This move raised concerns about political motivations behind the removal of board members who were either aligned with previous administrations or viewed as critical of the Trump administration’s policies.
Judge Contreras, nominated by President Barack Obama and in his role since 2012, granted a temporary restraining order for Harris, allowing her to continue chairing the board even as her case was argued in court. Following a recent hearing, he extended this order into a permanent injunction.
The Broader Legal Battle
Throughout the litigation, government attorneys representing Trump’s administration contended that the court did not have the authority to reinstate Harris or prevent the president from appointing a successor. They argued that Trump’s election gave him the prerogative to operate the executive branch as he saw fit, and that reinstating Harris would undermine this principle of democratic accountability.
The judge, however, countered this position by highlighting that Harris’s appointment as chairwoman was supported by a Senate confirmation process and established by law, which limits the circumstances under which she could be removed. Contreras stated, “The court finds that it is in the public interest to issue injunctive relief.”
Conclusion and Future Implications
The ruling has significant implications for the independence of federal agencies. As the MSPB plays a crucial role in upholding the rights of federal employees against arbitrary dismissals, Harris’s reinstatement could signal a reinforcement of legal protections against politically motivated removals in the future.
The case also underscores the ongoing tension within the federal workforce related to political influence, particularly under administrations that may seek to reshape agencies aligned with their policy agendas. As this situation develops, it may reshape the landscape of federal employment law and the protections afforded to civil servants.
