REUTERS PICTURES 40th ANNIVERSARY COLLECTION: Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump reacts during a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S. October 22, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria SEARCH "REUTERS PICTURES 40th ANNIVERSARY COLLECTION" FOR THIS PACKAGE

An appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress cannot restrict President Donald Trump's firing of National Labor Relations Board member (NLRB) Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris.

“Congress may not restrict the President’s ability to remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power” like members of the NLRB and the Merit Systems Protection Board, NOTUS reported, citing the decision. Both boards have a backlog in cases after Trump fired tens of thousands of government workers.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Gregory Katsas, who was appointed by Trump and confirmed in Dec. 2017, wrote for the 2-1 decision, "Congress may not restrict the President’s ability to remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power. As explained below, the NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature and different from the powers that Humphrey’s Executor deemed to be merely quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. So, Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members."

However, he also pointed out that the government never made the case that Wilcox and Harris "engaged in any conduct that would support for-cause removal under the relevant statutory restrictions." That wasn't the lawsuit, however, Judge Katsas noted. "Instead, [the lawsuit] argues that the restrictions are unconstitutional." A claim, with which he disagrees.

The full U.S. Senate votes to approve the president's appointees to the boards.

Judge Florence Y. Pan, appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote in her dissent that the court's decision was allowing a threat to "fundamentally change the character of our government" with its "maximalist theory of executive power (implicitly or explicitly)."

"Instead of relying on subject-matter expertise to make merits-based decisions for the public good, previously independent agencies must advance the political agenda of the President," said Pan. "Taken to its logical end, the government’s theory will eliminate removal protections for all employees of the Executive Branch and place every hiring decision and agency action under the political direction of the President. But such a radical upending of the constitutional order is not supported by the text or structure of the Constitution and is inconsistent with the intent of the Framers. And while the government claims to uphold the separation of powers, its theory instead concentrates excessive power in the President and thus paves the way to autocracy."

"Under my colleagues’ reasoning, it appears that no independent agencies may lawfully exist in this country: Their determination that the MSPB cannot be independent," she blasted.

Matt Szafranski, attorney and editor-in-chief of "Western Mass Politics and Insight," wrote, "This is plainly wrong on MSPB, at least insofar as SCOTUS has thus far indicated their plans for Humphrey's Executor because MSPB operates much more like a quasi-judicial body. You could argue the same for the NLRB, but it effectively has significant executive function."