A shocking development from the federal courts has seen the reinstatement of Labor Board leader Gwynne Wilcox, thanks to an Obama-appointed judge who likened President Trump to a “dictator.” The ruling pointed out that Trump’s decision to fire Wilcox was a blatant legal violation.
Earlier this year, President Trump took decisive action by terminating Gwynne Wilcox, along with the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, causing a stir among pro-union advocates. The decision met with fierce opposition, with the action described as “unprecedented and illegal.”
Wilcox, who was not ready to back down, vowed to pursue every legal avenue, stating to Reuters her determination to challenge the firing.
On Thursday, US District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, ruled in favor of Wilcox, labeling Trump’s action unlawful. In a scathing 36-page opinion, Howell drew parallels between Trump and autocratic rulers, asserting that the President overstepped his authority.
“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 emphasized that the President’s removal power isn’t absolute, stating that Trump’s attempt to dismiss Wilcox was a clear violation of the law. Consequently, she ordered Wilcox’s reinstatement, affirming her rightful position on the board.
Comparing the case to others like Cathy Harris and Hampton Dellinger, Howell referenced “Humphrey’s Executor,” a precedent that restricts removal powers, which might soon be reconsidered by the Supreme Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas has previously criticized the 1935 decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, arguing that it threatens the constitutional structure and encroaches on executive power.
“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 opinion.
Trending: BREAKING: DC Circuit Court Allows Trump Firing of Hampton Dellinger Read more
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
