SCOTUS Delays Trump Bid to Oust Perlmutter Pending Arguments in Similar Cases

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order deferring a decision in Trump v. Perlmutter, a case in which President Donald Trump is asking the Court to stay an interlocutory injunction issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in September restoring Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter to her post pending her lawsuit against Trump for removing her from office.

The High Court deferred the case pending decisions in Trump v. Slaughter, which addresses the Administration’s authority to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, with oral arguments scheduled for December 8, and Trump v. Cook, which concerns a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ lawsuit against Trump for her removal. Oral arguments in the latter case are scheduled for January 21, 2026.

The application for a stay was submitted in October to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by Todd Blanche, Acting Librarian of Congress; Paul Perkins, Acting Register of Copyrights; Sergio Gor, Director, White House Presidential Personnel Office; Trent Morse, Deputy Director, White House Presidential Personnel Office; Executive Office of the President; and Trump.

The Administration argued that the D.C. appellate court’s injunction represents “another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s power to remove executive officers.”

Trump first fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden on May 9, two days before he fired Perlmutter, and named Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, Todd Blanche, as acting Librarian of Congress. Perlmutter filed a complaint against Trump on May 22, calling his attempt to remove her “unlawful and ineffective” and arguing that the President “has no authority to name a temporary replacement Librarian of Congress, much less name a high-ranking DOJ official whose presence offends the constitutional separation of powers.”

Perlmutter initially lost her bid to enjoin Trump in July, but on appeal, the D.C. Circuit said “the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider ‘unusual actions relating to the discharge itself’ and a ‘genuinely extraordinary situation’— factors that inform the irreparable-harm analysis and distinguish this case from other removal cases.” Circuit Judge Walker dissented. The decision temporarily restored Perlmutter to her post pending conclusion of the lawsuit.

Justice Clarence Thomas indicated that he would have granted the government’s application, without explanation.

The Court granted the government’s application to stay the injunction in Trump v. Slaughter in early September and issued a split opinion later in the month indicating that Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented. Noting that Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935) still controls in this case, Kagan said: “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars.”

The questions being considered in Trump v. Slaughter next week are:

“1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.

(2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.”

In light of the deferral, Perlmutter will remain in office until after the conclusion of arguments in Trump v. Cook on January 21. There, the Court deferred the decision on the government’s application for a stay until after hearing oral argument.