SCOTUS Passes On Ruling Whether Trump Can Fire Copyright Office Head
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to immediately resolve whether President Donald J. Trump can once again remove the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, choosing instead to wait for clarity from two looming cases that could redefine the limits of presidential authority over independent agencies.
Rather than intervene now, the justices signaled they will revisit the matter after issuing rulings in disputes involving former Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter and Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook, according to The Hill. Those cases—both centered on the constitutional boundaries of removing officials who operate with significant policymaking power—are expected to shape the Court’s approach moving forward. Oral arguments in Slaughter’s case are scheduled for early next month; Cook’s will be heard in January.
At the center of the dispute is Shira Perlmutter, whom the administration dismissed in May along with her superior, the Librarian of Congress. President Trump subsequently elevated Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to oversee the office, part of a broader effort to restore executive oversight and rein in bureaucracies that had drifted from constitutional accountability.
But a divided D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Perlmutter’s removal, allowing her to remain in office while litigation continues. The administration has asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order reversing that ruling, The Hill reported.
Perlmutter’s removal came just one day after her office released a report questioning whether companies may legally use copyrighted works to train artificial-intelligence systems — a flashpoint issue as the administration moves to ensure that U.S. law keeps pace with rapidly advancing AI technologies. In her appeal, Perlmutter claimed that President Trump later made public statements contradicting the report’s conclusions.
Although a district judge initially rejected her challenge, the D.C. Circuit’s 2–1 ruling sided with Perlmutter and asserted that the firing was likely unlawful.
“In a system of checked and balanced power, the Executive has no authority to punish a Legislative Branch official for the advice that she provides to Congress,” Judge Florence Pan wrote for the majority.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer sharply disputed the panel’s analysis, calling it a “startling about-face” from the court’s previous recognition that the Library of Congress and its component offices belong to the executive branch.
“Every step of the court of appeals’ analysis depends on the premise that the Librarian and Register are legislative rather than executive officials,” Sauer wrote in last month’s petition, arguing that the “core premise” of the ruling was “fundamentally wrong.”
Attorneys for Perlmutter countered that the administration had created an “inexcusable mess” in its “zeal” to reassert presidential authority. They argued the question was not whether the copyright director performs executive-type duties, but whether Congress intentionally structured the Library of Congress to operate outside direct presidential control, The Hill noted.
“If Applicants were permitted to disregard Congress’s restrictions on the President’s appointment and removal powers, the Appointments Clause would be rendered a practical nullity — in defiance of the careful balance of executive and legislative power that the Constitution itself strikes,” Perlmutter’s lawyers wrote. “It is also undoubtedly in the public interest that the Court prevent the President’s unconstitutional actions, rather than permit him to act illegally and have his way,” they added.
In a forceful dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker—himself a Trump appointee—argued that Supreme Court precedent has “repeatedly and unequivocally” allowed President Trump’s removals to proceed during ongoing litigation. He stated plainly that Perlmutter should not have been allowed to stay.
Democracy Forward, the left-wing legal group representing Perlmutter, celebrated the Court’s decision to wait, claiming it signaled judicial skepticism toward what the organization called the administration’s “unlawful executive overreach.”
“We are pleased that the Court deferred the government’s motion to stay our court order in a case that is critically important for rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of the Library of Congress,” said Skye Perryman, the group’s president and CEO.