DOJ Says Trump Could Fire All Female Agency Heads and People Over 40

The Scope of Presidential Power Under Trump's DOJ

A legal battle over President Donald Trump's authority to fire agency officials took a dramatic turn in court when the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the president could potentially remove all female agency heads and those over 40. 
This assertion came in response to a hypothetical posed by Judge Karen Henderson, a Ronald Reagan-appointed judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. When asked whether the president could decide to remove all women or older officials from leadership positions, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur confirmed that such actions would fall under the president's constitutional removal power. However, he acknowledged that other constitutional provisions might come into play.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, attempted to mitigate the shock of McArthur's response by pointing to the 14th Amendment's protections, suggesting that the DOJ's position did not need to extend so far. However, the exchange highlighted the expansive interpretation of executive authority that Trump's administration sought to establish.
Here's everything to know about this unfolding legal drama.
MORE: Follow Wonderwall on MSN for more top news

The Fight Over Independent Agency Protections

The courtroom debate arose from lawsuits concerning the firings of board members at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), The Daily Beast reported. 
The DOJ aimed to push these cases to the Supreme Court, hoping to overturn Humphrey's Executor, a 1936 ruling that established protections for independent agency leadership. If the DOJ succeeded, these protections would be dismantled, allowing Donald Trump — or any future president — unilateral control over federal agencies.
Legal experts predict that if the Supreme Court sides with the DOJ, the decision would fundamentally reshape the executive branch, eliminating safeguards that protect federal employees from politically motivated firings. This would grant the president unprecedented control over agencies that are supposed to operate independently of political influence.

A Divided Appeals Court Hearing

The appellate court hearing took a contentious turn as judges on the panel clashed over how to interpret existing legal precedent. 
Judge Patricia Millet, a Barack Obama appointee, pushed back against the DOJ's argument, emphasizing that Humphrey's Executor remains binding law. She criticized any attempt to dismiss Supreme Court precedent as subjective interpretation, asking why the Justice Department believed lower courts had the authority to override a decision that the Supreme Court itself had repeatedly declined to overturn.
Judge Justin Walker, however, appeared to support the DOJ's efforts, arguing that while precedent is binding, its interpretation can evolve. He suggested that past rulings had already weakened Humphrey's Executor to the point that its protections were nearly obsolete.

The Expansion of Executive Authority

Judge Justin Walker pushed the argument even further, bringing up a separate legal dispute involving the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. He questioned whether, under the DOJ's theory, federal courts should even be allowed to intervene in internal executive-branch disputes. Eric McArthur largely sidestepped the question, but the exchange pivoted to a broader concern: the judiciary's role in checking presidential power.
Walker also addressed a district judge's previous ruling that Donald Trump's firings were "blatantly illegal," suggesting that if the Supreme Court ultimately overturned the precedent, Trump's actions would be legally justified in retrospect.

The Future of the Federal Bureaucracy

In his closing arguments, Eric McArthur made a striking claim: reinstating the dismissed board members would cast a "heavy cloud of illegitimacy" over their future decisions. This statement reflects the administration's broader goal—to cement the president's ability to reshape the federal government at will.
The case is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority could significantly expand the president's power over independent agencies. If the Court sides with Donald Trump's DOJ, future administrations could have unchecked authority to remove civil servants and replace them with political allies, transforming the executive branch into an extension of the president's will rather than an independent governing structure.