Supreme Court issues split decisions on presidential firing power
Chief legal correspondent Shannon Bream details the Supreme Court’s latest rulings, including a decision in Trump v. Slaughter affirming the president’s power to dismiss a Federal Trade Commission commissioner. However, in Trump v. Cook, the court states the president cannot unilaterally fire a Federal Reserve governor. These opinions shape executive power and independent agencies.
NEWYou can now listen to articles!
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s directive for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to cut its workforce in half was unlawful.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found on Friday that the Department of Homeland Security acted unlawfully by taking control of FEMA’s authority over its own personnel and pushing the agency to slash thousands of disaster-response jobs.
Although FEMA is under DHS, a federal law adopted after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 states that the department “may not substantially or significantly reduce (FEMA’s) authorities, responsibilities, or functions.”
Illston said the department violated the law last year when it sought to stop FEMA from renewing the temporary contracts of thousands of on-call reservists who respond to disasters.
DHS PLANS COSTLY CRACKDOWN ON STATES THAT DON’T COOPERATE ON ELECTION SECURITY
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s order for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to cut its workforce in half was unlawful. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
“There is no evidence in the record reflecting reasoned decision-making for this about-face or for the subsequent conditions DHS placed on FEMA’s renewal authority,” Illston wrote.
Illston’s ruling did not include remedies or penalties, noting that those would be addressed in a separate ruling next month.
The judge said the parties have until Oct. 9 to submit briefings on “what relief remains outstanding” in this case.
The unions that sued argued that the planned cuts are unlawful because they would undermine FEMA’s core disaster‑response mission, were not approved by Congress and were ordered by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem instead of FEMA officials.
President Donald Trump has suggested that FEMA should be eliminated and that states should handle their emergency preparedness. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The administration has contended that FEMA has considerable flexibility to determine proper staffing levels. President Donald Trump has suggested that FEMA should be eliminated and that states should handle their emergency preparedness.
In June, Illston declined to immediately block the job cuts, ruling that FEMA had at least temporarily abandoned its planned layoffs.
But on Friday, the judge wrote that FEMA appeared to be moving forward with the job cuts. She said FEMA projected its staffing levels for the upcoming fiscal year at 11,383 employees, or about half of previous levels, without any basis for picking that figure.
DEM GOV LASHES OUT AS TRUMP HUD SCRUTINIZES NEARLY $2B IN DISASTER FUNDS OVER FRAUD CONCERNS
The unions that sued argued that the planned cuts are unlawful because they would undermine FEMA’s core disaster‑response mission, were not approved by Congress and were ordered by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem instead of FEMA officials. (Al Drago/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE APP
Digital reached out to DHS and FEMA for comment but they did not immediately respond.
“Under President Trump and [DHS] Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin’s leadership, DHS and FEMA are ready for the 2026 hurricane season,” a FEMA spokesperson said in a statement to The Hill. “FEMA continues to maintain a roster of experienced leadership and support staff across headquarters and regional offices. No position is without experienced leadership.”
In a separate ruling, the judge also faulted FEMA and DHS officials for using the Signal messaging app on their personal cell phones to discuss staffing cuts and deleting the messages.
Illston said the messages would have been relevant to the lawsuit and that she would now presume “that the lost Signal messages would have been unfavorable to Defendants because they would have been further evidence” of unlawful conduct.
Reuters contributed to this report.
