The Trump administration recently scored a limited but significant win in its widely-telegraphed efforts to pare down, and perhaps ultimately shutter, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

In a terse, 3-page Friday ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed three parts of an eight-part preliminary injunction previously entered by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on March 28.

In the underlying case, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) alleges the Trump administration – specifically Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought – unlawfully fired CFPB employees without cause and scrubbed CFPB data from its records, including important CFPB contracts that are “necessary for cybersecurity.”

In a preview of her injunction, Jackson told U.S. Department of Justice lawyers she was inclined to grant the plaintiffs their requested relief to “make sure [the CFPB] hasn’t been choked out of its very existence” before she can issue a judgment on the merits.

UKIAH, Calif. — The Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Field Office, in cooperation with CAL FIRE Lake Napa Unit, the Tribal EcoResotration Alliance (TERA), Mendocino National Forest and Lake County District 5, plans to conduct prescribed fire operations in the Black Forest along Soda Bay Road, on the northeast side of Mount Konocti in Kelseyville, Lake County. Pile burn operations are scheduled to start April 14 and may continue periodically through May 30. Burning will take place only when weather and fuel moisture allow for safe and successful burning.

The prescribed fire is part of a shaded fuel break initiated in 2008 to protect communities. The project will remove hazardous fuels that could feed fires within this wildland-urban interface, where public lands meet urban development. Approximately 36 acres of undergrowth and small trees have been hand-thinned by firefighters and piled over the last three years. The operation aims to burn approximately 500 piles covering the entire shaded fuel break.

The Black Forest, a pristine Douglas fir forest, encompasses approximately 242 acres of BLM-managed public lands and supports many plants and species as well as valuable cultural resources and an important watershed

The BLM is committed to keeping public landscapes healthy and productive. More information is available from the BLM Ukiah Field Office at 707-468-4000.

A federal appeals court will leave in place an earlier ruling allowing the president to terminate the head of a board that reviews firings of federal employees after the Justice Department argued that staying its order would effectively disenfranchise those who voted for President Donald Trump.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia had previously rejected a request to stay its decision allowing President Trump to fire Cathy A. Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Mirroring the appellate panel’s Friday tally, the judges voted 2-1 in rejecting a request to stay its Friday decision, which granted a stay of a lower court’s order that required Harris be returned to her role on the board.

U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, on Friday both voted in favor of staying the district court’s ruling, while U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, a Barack Obama appointee, dissented. Harris immediately requested a stay of the appeals court’s order pending her request that the case be presented to the court “en banc,” meaning all of the judges on the circuit.

Walker and Henderson again voted to reject Harris’ request for a stay of the stay while Millett said she would grant the request.

Harris, a Democrat who was nominated to the MSPB by President Joe Biden, was supposed to serve until her term expired in 2028 before she received notice last month that she was “terminated, effective immediately.” Without Harris, the board lacks a quorum, which could hamper its ability to function as the Trump administration continues its sprawling efforts to gut the federal workforce.

“As a panel of this Court explained in Dellinger v. Bessent — when staying an order reinstating another principal executive officer whom the President removed — and as Judge Henderson reiterated in this case, ‘it is impossible to unwind the days during which a President is directed to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed,”” the DOJ’s 12-page filing opposing both Harris’ second stay request and her request for a rehearing en banc states. “Judge Walker similarly recognized that ‘[t]he forcible reinstatement of a presidentially removed principal officer disenfranchises voters by hampering the President’s ability to govern.’”

A New York couple was charged with manslaughter months after prosecutors said they lied about their rental home having functional smoke detectors.

A press release from the New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the Dutchess County District Attorney’s Office announced the March 18 arrest of Dennis Darcy, 57, and Meredith Darcy, 55, following an investigation into an October 2024 house fire that killed 35-year-old Shannon Hubbard and her 1-year-old daughter Margaret. According to the release, the house owned by the Darcys was being rented out to Hubbard and her family on Airbnb, which allegedly specified that the house was equipped with functioning smoke detectors.

WRGB, a local CBS affiliate, reported that the investigation allegedly found that there were no smoke detectors at the home at all.

An Oregon jury convicted a man of stabbing a friend 55 times and then stuffing his body in the trunk of the victim’s own car and lighting it on fire.

Robert Thomas Colon, 44, was found guilty of the Sept. 5, 2018, murder of Andrew Hathaway, 27, in Portland, the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office said last week in a press release. Before the trial began, Colon pleaded guilty to arson, abuse of a corpse and tampering with physical evidence. He’s slated to be sentenced on Wednesday. Colon faces a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years.

More from Law&Crime: ‘She jokes, she laughs’: Prosecutor knocks killer for cheerful attitude in trial for stabbing man, setting home on fire

According to prosecutors, Colon and Hathaway were visiting a home where two other men lived, and they all got high. At some point during the night, Colon and Hathaway began a fistfight. Colon was winning the fight and Hathaway began screaming for help. The two other men broke up the fight and things calmed down for a bit. But then the fight started up again with “Colon beating and stabbing Hathaway until he was dead,” prosecutors said.

Colon and one of the other men moved the body to the trunk of Hathaway’s car. They then drove to a vacant lot and lit it ablaze. Fire crews put out the blaze and discovered the remains. Hathaway’s body was unrecognizable as 80% of his remains were charred, prosecutors said.

The first case involving the second Trump administration has come to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the court has not gotten involved at this stage in the litigation, the case involves an issue of enormous significance: May a president fire anyone who works in the executive branch of government even when there is a statute limiting firing? More generally, will the court continue to allow the existence of “independent regulatory agencies” with some degree of independence from a president?

The facts of this case

The case, Bessent v. Dellinger, involves Hampton Dellinger, who is the head of the Office of Special Counsel. This is an independent agency responsible for safeguarding whistleblowers and enforcing ethics laws. Dellinger was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024 to a five-year term and confirmed by the Senate under a law that says that the Special Counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

On Feb. 7, Dellinger was fired in a one sentence email that gave no reasons. In none of its filings in court, has the government tried to claim that there was cause for removing him.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, following Supreme Court precedent, issued a temporary restraining order against the removal. On Feb. 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, denied a request to stay the temporary restraining order. The majority explained that TROs are generally not reviewable on appeal. If the district court, on the expiration of the TRO, issues a preliminary injunction, that would be subject to appeal.

The next day, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO. On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court, in a short order, declined to hear the matter at this point, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

Independent regulatory agencies and the removal power

Independent regulatory agencies have a long history. In 1887, Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates. Over time, a myriad of important agencies were created, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and many more.

As with cabinet officers, commissioners for these agencies are nominated by the president with a requirement of Senate confirmation. But unlike cabinet positions, members of the agencies have protection from removal. The statutes creating the agencies provide that the commissioners serve for a set term and can be removed only for cause, usually defined as permitting firing by the president “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that prevented removal of commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission unless there was just cause for firing. The court stressed the importance of Congress being able to shield federal regulatory agencies from direct presidential control. The court declared: “The authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted; and that authority includes, as an appropriate incident, power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime.”

In Wiener v. United States, in 1958, the high court went further and held that even without a statutory limit on removal, the president could not remove executive officials where independence from the president is desirable. Wiener involved the president’s firing a member of the War Claims Commission. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission Act in Humphrey’s Executor, the statute creating the War Claims Commission did not expressly limit the president’s removal power.

However, the court concluded that the functional need for independence of the War Claims Commission limited the president’s removal power. The court explained that Congress’ intent was for the War Claims Commission to award claims based on merit rather than on political influence. The court said that there was a “sharp differentiation” between “those who are part of the executive establishment and those whose tasks require absolute freedom from executive interference.”

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Congress can provide protection from removal where independence from the president is desirable. In Morrison v. Olson, in 1988, the court upheld the constitutionality of a federal law which created an independent counsel to investigate wrongdoing by high level executive branch officials and allowed firing only for cause. In a 7-1 decision, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, upheld this limit and stressed that the independent counsel, who exists to investigate and prosecute alleged wrongdoing by those in the executive branch of government, ideally should be independent of the president.

In 2020, the Supreme Court clarified these principles and even spoke of the office held by Dellinger. In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the court, 5-4, held that Congress could not limit the removal of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The court distinguished Humphrey’s Executor. It said that the Congress cannot limit removal where an agency is directed by a single person, as was the case for the CFPB. But the court reaffirmed that Congress can limit removal where it is a multi-member commission as with the Federal Trade Commission in Humphrey’s Executor.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, contrasted the Office of Special Counsel, which Dellinger heads, to the CFPB and said: “In any event, the Office of Special Counsel exercises only limited jurisdiction to enforce certain rules governing federal government employers and employees. It does not bind private parties at all or wield regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB.”

The Trump administration position and the opposition

The Trump administration is arguing that cases such as Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison v. Olson should be overruled and that Congress never can limit the firing of anyone who works in the executive branch of government. In a letter, dated Feb. 12, Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris wrote to Sen. Richard Durbin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the Department of Justice has concluded that limits on removal are unconstitutional, that Humphrey’s Executor is wrong, and that it will not abide by statutes limiting firing.

On Feb. 18, the Trump administration issued an executive order, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, which declared that all federal agencies are under control of the president. It said that the president can fire those within the agency without needing to comply with statutory limits on removal and that all within the agencies must adhere to the president’s policies.

President Trump has fired many individuals who have statutory protection from removal such as Dellinger, a commissioner on the National Labor Relations Board, members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the head of the Federal Election Commission.

The Trump administration relies on what is referred to as the unitary executive theory. This is the view that the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the president who then is in charge of the entire executive branch of government. Any limit on presidential control, such as restrictions on removal, are unconstitutional.

Critics argue that the unitary executive theory has no historical support. The framers of the Constitution were deeply distrustful of executive authority. Those who oppose the unitary executive theory say that it ignores that federal powers are both separate and interdependent and the importance of checks and balances within the federal government.

In addition, critics argue, there are times when it is very desirable to have protection for those who are formally in the executive branch of government. For example, it is widely thought that the Federal Reserve Board, which has enormous influence over the economy, should not be directly answerable to the president. And it makes sense that the person who is handling whistleblower complaints against the government should have protection from removal.

The Supreme Court

Although the Supreme Court did not hear the Trump administration’s appeal in the Dellinger case at this time because of its procedural posture, the issue surely will come back to the court, in this or another case, soon. The court will then have to decide whether to overrule long-standing precedents and give the president powers that could extend to the ability to fire all government officials and employees.

On the one hand, there now may be a majority on the court disposed toward accepting the unitary executive theory. In Trump v. United States, the court, in a majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, stated “The President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme as the only person who alone composes a branch of government.” The court may well say that the distinction between single-member and multi-member heads of agencies that it drew in Seila Law is arbitrary.

On the other hand, for 90 years, the law has been that there can be independent agencies and there can be limits on presidential removal. It would be a dramatic expansion of presidential power for the court to embrace the unitary executive theory.

Perhaps the court will take an intermediate position, giving the president authority to remove the heads of agencies, but not finding civil service protection for federal employees unconstitutional.

The only sure thing is that one of the first tests of the Trump administration’s expansive assertion of executive power will involve whether Congress can impose limits on the president’s removal power. If the court embraces the unitary executive theory, the implications will be enormous.

---

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He’s also the author of many books, including No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States and A Court Divided: October Term 2023 (2024).

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

A federal judge in Virginia has given the Trump administration and CIA the green light to pluck intelligence workers from offices focused on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — falling in line with the president’s axing of DEI policies — after originally agreeing to block their terminations last week with a temporary restraining order.

“Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ordered that the administrative stay, entered on February 18, 2025, is vacated, with Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the deferred resignation program (“DRP”) and other employment options, made available to them under the CIA Director’s February 18, 2025 Memorandum, extended to at least to 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, March 3, 2025,” the Thursday order from U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga said. “Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ordered that the administrative stay, entered on February 18, 2025, is vacated.”

Trenga ruled from the bench, saying he was siding with Trump and CIA Director John Ratcliffe to vacate the TRO based on current laws and regulations in place that give them the authority to fire intelligence employees at will, according to The New York Times.

The judge reportedly said that he would have agreed to keep the TRO in place for the 11 plaintiffs — all intelligence workers who were fired — if the argument would have been centered around basic fairness. The federal employees at risk of being fired work in offices and have roles tasked with overseeing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs across all intelligence agencies.

More from Law&Crime: ‘Profoundly erroneous’: Trump admin says Biden-appointed judge’s order requiring ‘immediate outlay’ of nearly $2 billion is ‘without legal basis’

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee who presides over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, extended the deadline to Monday, March 3, for workers to resign under a deferred resignation program (“DRP”) and other employment options made available to them that allows them to be paid through Sept. 30. Employees are unable to challenge the firings or transfer to other agencies, per Trenga.

When the judge stayed the firings last week, he said that he was looking for “clarification” as to what agency regulations are involved in the case and the potential harm caused to the plaintiffs if they were to be terminated.

“Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, the Court concludes that it would benefit from Defendants’ response to the Motion, including clarification as to what Agency regulations are implicated in this case and the potential irreparable harm to Plaintiff John Does 1-6 and Jane Does 1-5,” Trenga’s Feb. 18 order said. “As the Court awaits full briefing and argument on the Motion, it exercises its powers under the All Writs Act and its inherent powers to manage its docket, to issue an administrative stay.”

After Thursday’s ruling came down, several intelligence workers — including those who filed the suit — gave Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Barghaan, who argued Trump’s case, a tongue lashing outside of court.

“You should be ashamed. You should really be ashamed of yourself,” one of the plaintiffs said, according to Politico. “That was really disgusting.”

When Trump issued his Jan. 20 orders ending DEI programs shortly after taking office, he condemned the initiatives and policies as being a corruption of “our institutions” and an attempt to replace “hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy,” according to one order. Three different directives were handed out targeting diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility roles.

“The previous administration has embedded deeply unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices within every agency and office of the Federal Government,” Trump said.

The DEI crusade has sparked multiple lawsuits and at least one other TRO in Maryland, where a federal judge blocked Trump from targeting federal agencies and contractors.

It’s unclear how many intelligence officers will be dismissed by the CIA, with as many as 51 being listed by lawyers for the employees. The plaintiffs suing the Trump administration include six men and five women who worked for the CIA and Director of National Intelligence. They claim in their complaint that they were unlawfully targeted and terminated due to “their assumed beliefs” about DEI policies without cause and notice.

“While intelligence officers lack recourse to the Merit System Protection Board, their own agencies classified internal regulations provide procedures for terminating officers,” the complaint says. “Officers’ basic rights include notice, the development of a record, to consult with counsel, and the opportunities to be heard and to appeal. Plaintiffs have received none of these rights.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

BISHOP, Calif. — The Bureau of Land Management Bishop Field Office plans to conduct prescribed fire operations as soon as Feb 24 in areas of the Bodie Hills, northeast of Lee Vining, in Mono County. Pile-burn operations will only be conducted when weather and fuel moistures allow for safe and successful burning.

Prescribed burning helps to reduce hazardous fuels, moderate the potential negative effects of wildland fire, and increase firefighter and public safety. Burning may continue through mid-March depending on weather conditions.

Slash piles, composed of limbs, branches and trees will be burned on approximately 500-acres of BLM-managed public lands in the Sinnamon Cut and Rancheria Springs areas. During burn operations, smoke may be visible from locations throughout the Mono Basin, including Lee Vining, Mono City, Conway Ranch Estates, U.S. Route 395, State Route 120 south of Mono Lake, and State Route 167 north of Mono Lake. All prescribed fire operations are conducted in close coordination with the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.

More information is available from the BLM Bishop Field Office at 760-872-5000. Updates will be provided by the BLM through the BLM California Fire Information Facebook and X.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., handed the Trump administration a win on Thursday by allowing the government to move forward with plans to fire vast number of federal employees.

In a 16-page memorandum opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, a Barack Obama appointee, determined he likely lacked the jurisdiction to hear the complaints of five labor unions.

The court reasoned — without technically getting to the merits of the case — that the lead plaintiff, the National Treasury Employees Union, “fails to establish that it is likely to succeed on the merits.”

Instead, the judge said the plaintiffs had to seek “administrative review by the Federal Labor Relations Authority in the first instance, followed by judicial review in the courts of appeals.”

A federal judge on Tuesday reinstated, for now at least, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board after she sued to regain her position following her removal by President Donald Trump.

On Feb. 10, the 45th and 47th president sent Cathy Harris packing without an explanation. This would-be firing, however, came with a conclusive termination letter that did not offer an explanation.

Under federal law, members of the MSPB are appointees who serve from their appointment until the end of their term unless they are removed “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

In a 21-page memorandum opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, a Barack Obama appointee, determined that the statute’s three firing mechanisms simply do not cover “differences of political opinion.” Moreover, the court ruled, the federal worker board must maintain a certain level of independence from politics.