A federal appeals court just dropped a bombshell by bringing back Shira Perlmutter as the Register of Copyrights after President Donald Trump gave her the boot.
The Washington Examiner reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 on Wednesday that Trump’s decision to fire Perlmutter in May was flat-out unlawful due to her legislative branch role.
Let’s rewind to May, when Trump decided to show Perlmutter the door. The move raised eyebrows, given her position as register of copyrights—a job tied to advising Congress, not executing presidential whims. It’s not exactly a shock that a separation of powers dust-up would follow.
Fast forward to Wednesday, and the appeals court panel made it crystal clear: Trump overstepped his authority. The majority argued that since Perlmutter’s role falls under the legislative branch, the president has no business playing HR manager here.
Judge Florence Pan, in her concurring statement, didn’t mince words, stating, “The Executive’s alleged blatant interference... strikes us as a violation.”
Well, that’s a polite way to say “back off,” but let’s be real—when did the executive branch become Congress’s babysitter? This ruling smells like a much-needed check on unchecked power.
Pan doubled down, noting, “The Register likely does not exercise substantial executive power.” If her job is to counsel Congress on copyright law, not to carry out Trump’s agenda, why the firing squad? Sounds like a classic case of misunderstanding the org chart.
The court leaned on a recent Supreme Court order in Trump v. Wilcox, which allows the president to remove executive officers at will—but Perlmutter doesn’t fit that mold. Her duties are legislative, not executive, and the majority saw no reason to let Trump wield a pink slip over her.
Not everyone on the panel agreed, though. Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented, insisting that the register wields “executive power.” Sorry, Judge, but if advising Congress is executive, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Walker argued further, saying, “The Government faces greater risk of harm” from letting a removed officer stay. Risk of harm to whom—bureaucratic egos? This dissent seems more about loyalty than logic.
This isn’t the first time Trump has tangled with independent agency heads, only to see courts push back. Perlmutter’s reinstatement joins a growing list of federal rulings reversing such firings, often citing precedents like the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor case that limits presidential removal powers.
Even as lower courts block some of these dismissals, the Supreme Court’s emergency docket has seen mixed results, with interim wins for the Trump administration in prior battles.
Take the ongoing FTC commissioner case, where Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stay on Monday to let a firing stand while the high court mulls it over. It’s a legal ping-pong match, and we’re all just spectators.
The broader trend is troubling for those of us who value a strong executive—yet even conservatives must admit that separation of powers isn’t just a catchy phrase.
When Congress sets up roles like Perlmutter’s to be independent, it’s not an invitation for the White House to play musical chairs.
Back to Perlmutter’s case, Judge Pan pointed out, “Perlmutter’s removal was likely unlawful” since Trump lacks direct authority over her. If the president can’t legally fire someone, why try? This isn’t just a misstep; it’s a misreading of the Constitution’s fine print.
Walker’s dissent, while spirited, misses the forest for the trees by focusing on theoretical “executive” duties. If we let every disagreement over job descriptions become a firing offense, we’re not governing—we’re playing petty politics.