A federal judge on Thursday reinstated Labor Board leader Gwynne Wilcox and called Trump’s firing a “blatant violation of the law.”
In January President Trump fired Biden-appointed Democrat chair of the National Labor Relations Board Gwynne Wilcox and the general counsel of the board.
Trump’s decision to fire pro-union members Gwynne Wilcox and the labor board’s general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo got pushback from the agency and was described as an “unprecedented and illegal” move.
Gwynne Wilcox vowed to challenge Trump’s decision to fire her. In a previous statement to Reuters, Wilcox said she will pursue “all legal avenues” to challenge Trump’s firing.
On Thursday, US District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, ruled Trump’s firing of Gwynne Wilcox was unlawful.
In a shocking 36-page opinion reviewed by The Gateway Pundit, Judge Beryl Howell compared Trump to a “king” or “dictator” and said the president does not have the authority to terminate members of the National Labor Relations Board.
“A President who touts an image of himself as a “king” or a “dictator,” perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional order, the President is tasked to be a conscientious custodian of the law, albeit an energetic one, to take care of effectuating his enumerated duties, including the laws enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by the Judiciary,” the judge wrote in a shocking opinion.
Judge Howell also said that “nothing in the Constitution or the historical development of the removal power has suggested the president’s removal power is absolute.”
“The President does not have the authority to terminate members of the National Labor Relations Board at will, and his attempt to fire plaintiff from her position on the Board was a blatant violation of the law,” Judge Howell wrote.
The Judge ordered Wilcox to be reinstated.
“Plaintiff’s termination from the Board was unlawful, and Mr. Kaplan and his subordinates are ordered to permit plaintiff to carry out all of her duties as a rightful, presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed member of the Board,” the judge said.
Just like the Cathy Harris and Hampton Dellinger cases, the judge claimed Wilcox’s job falls under “Humphrey’s Executor.”
“The Supreme Court explicitly upheld removal restrictions for such boards when considering removal protections for the commissioners of the FTC in Humphrey’s Executor in 1935, while also recognizing the President’s general authority over removal of executive branch officials,” Beryl Howell wrote.
“Under our constitutional system, such checks, by design, guard against executive overreach and the risk such overreach would pose of autocracy,” the judge said.
This case will likely head to the US Supreme Court where the justices may overturn Humphrey’s Executor.
Justice Clarence Thomas previously blasted the 1935 decision known as Humphrey’s Executor.
“Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people . . . Our tolerance of independent agencies in Humphrey’s Executor is an unfortunate example of the Court’s failure to apply the Constitution as written. That decision has paved the way for an ever-expanding encroachment on the power of the Executive, contrary to our constitutional design,” Justice Thomas wrote.
In his partial dissent Seila Law, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people . . . Our tolerance of independent agencies in Humphrey’s Executor is an unfortunate…
— Federalist Society (@FedSoc) February 11, 2025
Read the full article here