A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled on March 4, 2025, that the Trump administration’s effort to dismiss Cathy A. Harris, who leads the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), was unlawful. Judge Rudolph Contreras sided with Harris by granting her motion for summary judgment, concluding that her termination breached federal law and reaffirming the MSPB’s autonomy.
The ruling was based on Federal law, which only permits the removal of MSPB Board members for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Since no reason was provided for Harris’s termination, the court deemed it unlawful, preserving the MSPB’s critical role in overseeing whistleblower cases.
Harris received the email with notice of her termination on February 10, making her one of the five heads of government watchdog agencies to be terminated that week. Within a week, she was able to return to work due to the temporary restraining order (TRO) that was entered by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras.
Judge Contreras, citing a slew of Supreme Court cases as precedent, ruled that Ms. Harris must retain her position, writing that the Board’s “mission and purpose require independence,”
Furthermore, he added that such independence “would evaporate if the president could terminate its members without cause, even if a court could later order them reinstated.”
The ruling comes at a time with broad implications for the future of whistleblower protection; the Supreme Court is considering a related case involving Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Dellinger, who leads an agency responsible for investigating whistleblower complaints and allegations of misconduct within the government, was also fired by the Trump administration before he challenged it in court. A D.C. district court intervened and temporarily prevented Dellinger’s removal, allowing him to remain in office as the legal battle unfolds.
Stephen M. Kohn, a leading whistleblower attorney and chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, hailed the Judge’s decision as a pivotal moment for whistleblowers. Kohn emphasized, “The attempt to dismantle the MSPB by firing its leaders was both illegal and unprecedented.” He stressed that federal employees who report corruption and wrongdoing would be left defenseless without the Board’s protection.
The Justice Department had argued that the president should have broad authority to appoint and dismiss officials, including those at independent agencies. Jeremy S.B. Newman, a lawyer for the Justice Department, warned that blocking such firings would limit the president’s ability to manage executive branch personnel effectively. On the other side, Nathaniel Zelinsky, Harris’s lawyer, countered that allowing the president unrestricted power to fire independent agency heads would undermine the checks and balances that federal courts have long upheld.
Zelinsky argued that if the president could fire anyone exercising executive authority, it would set a dangerous precedent. He added that such a move would strip away protections that have existed since the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Judge Contreras agreed, stating that political meddling should not be allowed in the MSPB’s operations, which are mostly restricted to internal personnel matters.
Kohn emphasized the significance of the ruling: “Only the MSPB has the authority to issue relief when federal employees are fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle. This order will permit the Board to continue functioning and uphold the law.”
The MSPB’s role in defending federal workers from unfair treatment and whistleblowers from retaliation cannot be overstated. Last week, the Board ruled in favor of six federal employees who argued their firings were unjustified, underscoring its ongoing importance. Judge Contreras’s decision not only secures Harris’s position in the MSPB but also reinforces the independence of federal oversight bodies when their authority is under attack.
