In a stunning courtroom twist, a federal appeals court has slapped down President Trump’s attempt to oust Shira Perlmutter, the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, calling the move likely unlawful.
The Hill reported that on Wednesday, a divided panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, reinstated Perlmutter, blocking Trump’s firing and protecting her position until the legal battle is fully resolved.
This saga kicked off in May when Perlmutter was terminated after releasing a report that raised eyebrows by questioning the legality of companies using copyrighted materials to train artificial intelligence models.
Initially, Perlmutter’s fight for reinstatement hit a wall in July when a federal district judge refused to bring her back, citing a Supreme Court emergency ruling that allowed Trump to remove a National Labor Relations Board member amid litigation.
Undeterred, Perlmutter appealed to the D.C. Circuit, where the panel distinguished her case by labeling her a legislative branch official, unlike the executive branch figures in prior disputes.
Adding fuel to the fire, Trump also replaced the Librarian of Congress, to whom Perlmutter reports, by appointing Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—a move Perlmutter’s lawsuit claims was unlawful and strips Blanche of authority to fire her.
The appeals court majority, led by Judge Florence Pan and joined by Judge J. Michelle Childs—both Biden appointees—argued the executive branch overstepped.
“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,” Pan wrote. With all due respect, this sounds like a noble defense of constitutional boundaries, though one wonders if it’s more about shielding progressive-leaning officials from accountability.
Pan doubled down, stating, “The Executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a Legislative Branch official... strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers.”
While the principle of separation is vital, conservatives might argue this ruling risks tying the president’s hands when dealing with unelected bureaucrats pushing controversial policies.
On the flip side, dissenting Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, pointed out, “Gwynne Wilcox alleged the same thing.” His nod to similar past claims suggests this isn’t a novel issue, and perhaps the majority is stretching to carve out a special exception here—hardly a win for consistent legal standards.
Democracy Forward, the group representing Perlmutter, couldn’t hide their glee over the decision. “This is a significant victory for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of Congress,” said Brian Netter, their legal director. While it’s a win for their side, let’s not pretend this doesn’t also embolden those who’d rather see endless litigation than decisive executive action.
Netter added, “The President does not have the authority to remove the Register of Copyrights or to install his own officials to run the nation’s library.”
Fine words, but one might ask if this is less about principle and more about obstructing a president trying to steer policy away from the left-leaning status quo.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has flatly rejected Perlmutter’s arguments, signaling they’re not backing down. They may yet take this fight to the Supreme Court for emergency relief, a move that could reshape the battlefield.
For many on the right, this ruling raises red flags about judicial overreach into executive powers, especially when it comes to reining in officials who push reports that could stifle innovation—like Perlmutter’s take on AI training data. It’s a fair concern when unelected judges seem to prioritize bureaucratic protection over a president’s mandate to govern.