SCOTUS Refuses To Let Trump Remove Copyright Chief — For Now

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to allow President Donald Trump to immediately remove the nation’s top copyright official, leaving Shira Perlmutter in her position while the legal battle over her dismissal continues.

In an unsigned order, the justices rejected the Justice Department’s request to lift a lower court ruling that temporarily blocked Trump’s attempt to remove Perlmutter as Register of Copyrights and director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

The Court made clear that its decision was procedural and did not resolve the broader legal question of whether the president has authority to remove the official.

Perlmutter was informed in May 2025 that the Trump administration had fired her.

As Register of Copyrights, she serves as Congress’ chief adviser on copyright law and oversees the U.S. Copyright Office, which operates under the Library of Congress.

Her dismissal came one day after the Copyright Office circulated a report concluding that certain unauthorized uses of copyrighted material by technology companies to train generative artificial intelligence systems could violate copyright law.

Perlmutter’s attorneys have argued that Trump removed her because he disagreed with the report’s conclusions on artificial intelligence.

The Trump administration disputes that framing and argues the president acted within his constitutional authority.

Later that same month, Trump also dismissed Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden.

He then designated Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense attorney and current acting U.S. attorney general, to serve as acting Librarian of Congress.

In that role, Blanche purported to ratify Trump’s decision to remove Perlmutter.

Perlmutter filed suit, arguing that Trump lacked authority to appoint Blanche because the Library of Congress is part of the legislative branch rather than the executive branch.

She also argues that because the Copyright Office operates within the legislative branch, the president lacks statutory authority to remove its chief.

The dispute has become a significant separation-of-powers fight because the Constitution divides federal power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

A federal district judge initially declined to restore Perlmutter to her position, ruling that she had not shown the kind of irreparable harm required for a preliminary injunction.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later reversed that decision.

In a divided ruling, the appeals court reinstated Perlmutter while the case continues.

Writing for the majority, Judge Florence Pan said Trump’s action amounted to “an attempt to reach into the legislative branch to fire an official that he has no statutory authority to either appoint or remove.”

Pan compared the move to a president trying to remove a law clerk working for a federal judge.

“The president’s purported removal of the legislative branch’s chief adviser on copyright matters, based on the advice that she provided to Congress, is akin to the president trying to fire a federal judge’s law clerk,” Pan wrote.

Judge J. Michelle Childs joined the majority opinion.

The Trump administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Justice Department attorneys argued that federal law authorized Blanche’s appointment as acting Librarian of Congress and that Article II of the Constitution gives the president authority to remove Perlmutter because, in the administration’s view, the Copyright Office exercises executive power.

The Supreme Court had previously delayed action on the administration’s request while considering two other cases involving Trump’s power to remove federal officials.

On Monday, the Court allowed Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter but refused to let him dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

Tuesday’s order keeps Perlmutter in office for now while the broader legal challenge continues in the lower courts, Reuters reported.

The justices did not explain their reasoning.

Because the order does not address the merits, the Supreme Court could still reach a different conclusion if it later agrees to hear the full dispute.

For conservatives, the case raises an important question about presidential authority and the growing power of unelected officials inside the federal system.

Trump has repeatedly argued that voters elect a president to control the executive branch and carry out a national agenda, not to be blocked by entrenched officials protected by legal technicalities.

Perlmutter’s defenders argue the case is different because the Copyright Office is tied to Congress through the Library of Congress.

That distinction now sits at the center of the fight.

The broader issue is whether a president can remove officials whose work affects national policy, especially in major emerging areas such as artificial intelligence, copyright law, and technology regulation.

The Supreme Court has not answered that question yet.

For now, Perlmutter remains in place, Trump’s removal effort is paused, and another major separation-of-powers battle continues through the courts.