Two former members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Travis LeBlanc and Edward Felten, filed a lawsuit against the government after being fired by President Trump. They claim their terminations were illegal and seek reinstatement. Their dismissals left the five-member board with only one member, effectively paralyzing the agency. This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of litigation stemming from Trump’s firings, which may challenge the boundaries of presidential power. The board was created after 9/11 to protect civil liberties amid national security measures, and its members are intended to operate independently from the president.
Two ex-members of an independent civil liberties oversight agency, who were dismissed by President Trump, initiated a lawsuit against the government on Monday, requesting a court ruling to declare their dismissals unlawful and to reinstate them in their previous roles.
This lawsuit marks the latest in a series of legal actions stemming from President Trump’s removal of officials, seen as part of an overarching attack on the essential framework of the federal government.
The ousted officials, Travis LeBlanc and Edward W. Felten, were among three Democrats appointed to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board whom Mr. Trump removed on January 27. A third member, Sharon Bradford Franklin, was also removed, although she was set to leave two days later and did not participate in the lawsuit.
With a fourth position already vacant, the departures resulted in the five-member board being left with only one member, Beth Williams, a Republican appointee. The dismissals incapacitated the agency, leaving it without sufficient members to undertake official actions such as initiating investigations or issuing policy recommendation reports.
In the early days of his second term, Mr. Trump has engaged in a series of firings that violate statutes established by Congress, which limit the circumstances under which a president can remove certain officials. Numerous such firings have resulted in lawsuits, likely intended to set precedents that could encourage the Supreme Court to broaden presidential powers by invalidating these laws as infringements on Mr. Trump’s constitutional authority.
Many of these cases hinge on specific constraints outlined in legislation stating that presidents cannot dismiss certain officials arbitrarily but only for reasons such as misconduct. Examples of these lawsuits include Mr. Trump’s terminations of members from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board.
However, the case mentioned on Monday will be more complex because Congress did not explicitly state in law that board members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board could only be removed for cause, even though the statute creating the board designates it as an “independent” agency.
Despite this, there has been a prevailing understanding that officials leading independent agencies are protected by implicit norms that restrict removals to circumstances of cause. For instance, while the legislation governing the Securities and Exchange Commission lacks such a provision, the Supreme Court presumed in a 2010 ruling that an implicit limit does exist.
Initially, Congress established the privacy board with the expectation that its members would serve at the president’s “pleasure,” but eventually altered the statute to eliminate that provision and establish the board as an “independent agency.” The lawsuit contends that this alteration, along with other considerations, suggests that the law should be interpreted to prohibit arbitrary dismissals.
“Interpreting the statute to allow removals without cause would contradict the statute’s explicit meaning and fundamentally compromise the framework of agency independence that Congress intentionally designed,” the lawsuit stated.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established as an independent agency in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Its primary responsibility involves investigating national security activities that might infringe upon individual rights, such as surveillance impacting Americans or the application of terrorism watch lists that lead to additional security screenings at airports.
Equipped with security clearances and subpoena authority, the board is structured to consist of five members, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, who serve six-year terms and may remain for an additional term if a successor has not been confirmed. Some members are appointed by the president, while others are selected by congressional leaders from the opposing party.