Federal Judge Rebukes Trump, Reinstates Labor Board Member, Citing Separation of Powers Concerns
A federal judge has forcefully pushed back against former President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove members of federal labor agencies, reinstating Susan Grundmann to her position on the Federal Labor Management Authority (FLMA). The ruling represents a significant blow to Trump’s attempts to curb the power of federal employee unions and streamline the federal workforce. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, delivered a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration’s legal arguments, characterizing them as a threat to the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers.
The FLMA, where Grundmann serves, plays a crucial role in resolving disputes between federal labor unions and the government. With the Trump administration actively seeking to weaken these unions and reduce the number of federal employees, the FLMA’s role has become increasingly important. Just days before Grundmann’s reinstatement, the Department of Homeland Security announced the termination of collective bargaining rights for employees of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the agency responsible for airport security. Furthermore, on his first day in office, Trump signaled his administration’s disregard for federal workers’ rights by stating it would not honor the Department of Education’s existing union contract.
The legal challenge arose after Trump attempted to remove Grundmann through a late-night email, a tactic he employed in similar situations involving other federal labor officials. The Department of Justice (DOJ), defending the president’s actions, argued that compelling the president to retain an officer he no longer trusts would raise serious separation-of-powers concerns. Judge Sooknanan, however, turned this argument on its head, asserting that it was the government’s position itself that threatened the constitutional balance.
In her ruling, Sooknanan highlighted the broader implications of the DOJ’s argument, stating that it painted "with a broad brush" and threatened to undermine established constitutional protections. She emphasized the importance of checks and balances, warning against the concentration of power within a single branch of government. "Ours is not an autocracy," she wrote, "it is a system of checks and balances. Our Founders recognized that the concentration of power in one branch of government would spell disaster."
Grundmann’s case is not an isolated incident. Trump similarly attempted to remove other individuals leading federal labor agencies, often employing the same method of late-night emails. Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which protects federal employees from wrongful firings, was also temporarily reinstated by a court after being dismissed by Trump. Similarly, Gwynne Wilcox was reinstated to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which primarily oversees private sector unions, following another critical court decision questioning the Trump administration’s interpretation of executive authority.
The only successful removal of a federal labor official by Trump was that of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, who had attempted to block the firing of thousands of probationary employees in February. However, Dellinger’s case differed significantly from the others as he was a single executive rather than a board member. This distinction proved crucial, as courts have generally been more willing to intervene in cases involving board members, whose roles are often designed to be independent from direct presidential control.
Judge Sooknanan directly referenced all four firings in her decision, underscoring the pattern of behavior exhibited by the Trump administration. She specifically addressed the DOJ’s argument that the president should have the unilateral power to fire the heads of executive branch agencies, regardless of whether Congress intended those agencies to be independent. The DOJ asserted that the law protecting Grundmann’s position was unconstitutional, based on the premise that executive power rests solely with the president.
The court rejected this argument, siding with Grundmann and upholding the principle that Congress has the power to create independent agencies and protect their members from arbitrary removal. This power is seen as essential to ensuring the impartiality and effectiveness of these agencies, preventing them from being subject to the whims of political pressure.
The reinstatement of Grundmann is a significant victory for federal labor unions and a reaffirmation of the importance of checks and balances within the U.S. government. The ruling sends a clear message that the president’s power is not unlimited and that the courts will act to protect the Constitution from overreach. It also underscores the vital role of an independent judiciary in safeguarding the rights of federal employees and ensuring the fair and impartial administration of labor laws. The decision will likely have a chilling effect on future attempts to undermine the independence of federal agencies and weaken the protections afforded to federal workers. It reinforces the notion that while the president holds considerable power, that power is not absolute and is subject to the constraints of the law and the Constitution. The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate case, serving as a precedent for future disputes involving the separation of powers and the protection of independent agencies. The long-term effects will depend on future legal challenges and the evolving political landscape, but for now, the decision stands as a strong defense of the constitutional principles that underpin American democracy.
