Samuels Sues Over EEOC Ouster as Supreme Court Benches NLRB’s Wilcox

A major legal battle is unfolding over whether President Trump had the power to fire two Senate-confirmed officials from independent federal agencies. One is Jocelyn Samuels, formerly of the EEOC. The other is Gwynne Wilcox, who had just started a second term on the NLRB. Their cases are raising serious questions about how much control a president can exercise over agencies that are supposed to be independent.

---

TL;DR: Jocelyn Samuels is suing President Trump and the EEOC, arguing that her removal as Commissioner violated legal protections meant to keep politics out of the agency and left it unable to function. At the same time, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court order putting another removed official, Gwynne Wilcox, back on the National Labor Relations Board, teeing up a bigger fight over how much power the President has over independent federal agencies.

---

Jocelyn Samuels Sues Over Her EEOC Firing

On April 9, former EEOC Commissioner Jocelyn Samuels filed suit against President Trump, the EEOC, and its Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, arguing that her January 2025 removal from the Commission was illegal. Samuels had been confirmed to a five-year term that wasn’t set to expire until July 2026. She says she was supposed to be protected from being fired just because the President disagreed with her views.

Her case is based on how the EEOC was set up by Congress—but also on her interpretation of the law. While the statute provides for staggered five-year terms, it doesn’t explicitly say whether the President can remove a commissioner without cause. Samuels argues that the agency’s structure and mission imply protections against political firings. She draws on Supreme Court precedent, particularly Humphrey’s Executor, which recognized limits on presidential removal of officials at independent agencies performing quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative roles. According to Samuels, those principles apply here and are meant to ensure the agency stays independent, even as presidential administrations change.

Because Samuels and another Democratic commissioner were removed, only two commissioners remain—too few for the EEOC to make many official decisions. That includes issuing guidance, approving certain lawsuits, or ruling on appeals. In short, the agency is stuck.

Samuels believes she was removed because she criticized Trump’s new executive orders that reversed diversity, equity, inclusion, and LGBTQ+ protections. She’s asking a court to declare her firing invalid and reinstate her so the EEOC can get back to work.

Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Reinstatement of NLRB Commissioner While Weighing Presidential Removal Power

The legal battle over Gwynne Wilcox’s removal from the National Labor Relations Board has taken a dramatic and fast-moving path. Wilcox, a Democratic commissioner confirmed to a second term in 2023, was removed by President Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025. She sued, arguing her removal was unlawful.

On March 6, a federal district court agreed with her and ordered that she be reinstated, finding that the President could not remove her without cause. That win, however, was short-lived. The government appealed, and while a three-judge panel initially stayed the lower court’s order, the full D.C. Circuit later vacated that stay, temporarily restoring Wilcox to her role.

But then came another twist: on April 9, Chief Justice Roberts stepped in and issued an emergency order on behalf of the Supreme Court, hitting pause on the lower court’s decision. That means Wilcox’s removal stands—for now—while the Justices decide whether to take up the case.

The legal issue at the center of all this is whether the President can fire officials from independent agencies like the NLRB simply because of political disagreements. Older Supreme Court precedent, particularly Humphrey’s Executor, suggests that certain officials at independent agencies—especially those in quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative roles—may not be removed by the President without cause. It does not explicitly require a hearing, and the protections are inferred based on the nature of the office, not spelled out for every agency. But the current administration argues that the Constitution gives the President broad authority to remove executive officials at will.

The case has already taken a dizzying turn through the federal court system, and the final word may come soon from the Supreme Court.

Why Employers Should Care

This might sound like political or legal wrangling in Washington, but these cases could have serious implications for how federal agencies operate—and how they enforce workplace laws. If presidents can fire agency leaders just because of political disagreements, the direction of agencies like the EEOC and NLRB could swing sharply with every new administration.

That kind of uncertainty impacts everyone. The EEOC, for example, currently can’t move forward with certain lawsuits, issue guidance, or resolve certain appeals because it doesn’t have enough commissioners to vote. That creates real challenges for both employers trying to stay compliant and workers trying to protect their rights.

What’s at Stake

Between Jocelyn Samuels’ lawsuit and the roller coaster of rulings in the Wilcox case, the courts are now facing big questions about how independent these agencies really are—and how much control a president should have over them. The answers could reshape the balance of power in Washington and ripple out to workplaces across the country.