A career bureaucrat tried to hang onto her taxpayer-funded job by running to court, claiming President Donald Trump had no authority to remove her. But on Wednesday, that argument fell flat in federal court.

Shira Perlmutter, the former head of the U.S. Copyright Office, sought a court order to block her dismissal, arguing that the Trump administration had no right to terminate her employment. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly wasn’t buying it.

According to the Associated Press, Kelly rejected Perlmutter’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have allowed her to stay in office during ongoing litigation. He ruled she failed to demonstrate any “irreparable harm” from being removed.

Importantly, Judge Kelly didn’t rule on the core constitutional claims of the case — he simply declined to intervene at this early stage.

Perlmutter has served as Register of Copyrights since October 2020. She was appointed by then-Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, a holdover from the Obama era. But President Trump recently removed Hayden and tapped Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to serve as acting Librarian of Congress — a move well within his executive authority.

That reshuffling spelled the end for Perlmutter, whose position falls under the authority of the Librarian of Congress. The U.S. Copyright Office, although nestled within the legislative branch’s Library of Congress, remains a federally funded entity overseen by a presidentially appointed official — subject to Senate confirmation.

Perlmutter’s lawsuit, which Politico says targets both Blanche and the broader Trump administration, hinges on the idea that her position is somehow immune from political oversight. But the Justice Department made it clear in its court filing that her claim simply doesn’t hold water.

“The Constitution creates three branches of Government. There is Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary. There is no fourth constitutional category reserved for an indeterminate-and-multiplying number of autonomous federal organizations. That simple principle suffices to deny Plaintiff’s motion,” the DOJ stated.

The filing laid out the sequence of events clearly:

“The President of the United States removed Carla Hayden from her position as Librarian of Congress and designated the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, as acting Librarian.
The President then removed Plaintiff, Shira Perlmutter, from service as the Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office — a decision that was ratified by Mr. Blanche in his role as acting Librarian, including through Mr. Blanche’s appointment of Paul Perkins to that role.”

The administration’s position was firm: The Library of Congress, despite its legislative affiliation, is not exempt from executive oversight.

“The President had the power to remove the Librarian and designate an acting replacement. The Library of Congress is not an autonomous organization free from political supervision. It is part of the Executive Branch and is subject to presidential control, according to the strictures of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act,” the DOJ argued.

And the government dismissed Perlmutter’s claims of injury as meritless.

“Plaintiff has no right to perpetual service as Register of Copyrights,” the filing said, adding that any harm she alleged was not personal but institutional — and irrelevant to her legal standing.

“The other injuries Plaintiff postulates are not her injuries, but supposed institutional injuries to the Library or to Congress — injuries that cannot support her request for judicial reinstallation to office. And Plaintiff makes no claim that the U.S. Copyright Office is somehow in jeopardy.”

Following the court’s decision, the White House reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring the Executive Branch speaks with one voice.

“All organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction,” White House representative Anna Kelly said in a statement to Roll Call.
“President Trump reserves the right to remove employees within his own Executive Branch who exert his executive authority.”

This case underscores a growing reality in Washington: under President Trump’s leadership, unelected bureaucrats are no longer untouchable.