Federal Courts Hear Challenges to Trump Agency Dismantling, Grant Restorations

Legal challenges and scholarly debates have intensified around President Donald Trump's efforts to dismantle federal agencies and terminate members of independent federal commissions, raising significant constitutional questions about executive power. Professor Jodi Short and other top legal scholars have submitted amicus briefs opposing the "unitary executive theory," arguing that the president cannot unilaterally bypass Congress and the courts in dismantling agencies such as the Department of Education and USAID, emphasizing separation-of-powers principles. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's attempts to cancel or suspend federal grants, such as those awarded to UCLA by the National Science Foundation, have been rebuked by federal judges who found such actions to be misleading and an overreach of authority. Further complicating the situation, Trump has also undermined the Merit Systems Protection Board, a critical venue for federal workers to challenge wrongful terminations, effectively limiting protections for the federal workforce. Expert commentary, including from Columbia Law's Lev Menand, highlights conflicts over the legality of Trump's terminations of Democratic commissioners of independent agencies, referencing Supreme Court precedent that limits such removals to "for cause" only, with ongoing litigation and Supreme Court stay orders reflecting this tension. These developments collectively underscore an escalating clash between the executive branch and the judiciary, testing the boundaries of U.S. separation of powers.