2026年8月7日 / 美国东部时间上午10:20 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 一个多月前，美国最高法院推翻了对联邦贸易委员会委员的免职保护规定，扩大了总统权力，为总统随意解雇某些独立委员会成员扫清了道路。
但就在最高法院审议国会为保护这些官员免受政治压力所做努力的合法性之际，特朗普总统解雇一系列其他联邦工作人员——从司法部律师到移民法官再到联邦调查局特工——引发的法律纠纷正在联邦法院审理中。
法律学者表示，这些案件可能成为对总统权力的下一次考验，并将对自20世纪70年代末以来实施的公务员保护制度及受其保护的联邦雇员产生重大影响。
明尼苏达大学研究公务员制度的法学教授尼古拉斯·贝德纳对哥伦比亚广播公司新闻表示：“我们能否拥有一支根据专业技能、资历和工作表现而非总统的政治意识形态来选拔和留任的公务员队伍，这是我们现代行政治理体系的全部基础。”
自第二任期开始以来，特朗普先生一直在大刀阔斧地重塑联邦政府。作为其包括精简行政部门在内的计划的一部分，超过2.5万名仍处于试用期的政府工作人员被解雇，各机构也实施了大规模裁员计划，即所谓的“缩减编制”。
但对于数百名其他公务员——那些被视为“低级官员”以及普通雇员——总统援引美国宪法第二条，绕过公务员法规定的程序将他们解雇，辩称这是行使行政权力。“低级”行政部门官员可由总统或部门负责人任命，且通常由经总统提名、参议院确认的主要官员监督。
特朗普解雇这些联邦官员的案件如今正朝着最高法院推进。联邦上诉法院将于今年秋季审理两名前移民法官梅根·杰克勒和布兰登·雅罗奇提起的诉讼，二人于2025年2月被解雇。虽然上诉法院的案件通常先由三名法官组成的合议庭审理，但联邦巡回法院在6月批准了杰克勒和雅罗奇的请求，由全院法官从一开始就审理此案——这表明该法院认识到这场争议的重要性。
“这起案件将提交最高法院，以检验总统是否有权无故解雇联邦雇员这一问题，”贝德纳在谈及总统是否有权无故解雇联邦雇员时表示。
杰克勒和雅罗奇的案件在 merit systems 保护委员会（审理联邦雇员不利处分上诉的机构）作出有利于司法部的裁决后，被提交至联邦巡回法院。在一份鲜为人关注的3月裁决中，该委员会认定“任何实体，包括国会或该委员会，都不得限制总统的免职权力”，因为“这样做会侵犯总统忠实执行法律的能力”。
司法部辩称，《1978年公务员改革法案》——一部为联邦雇员提供保护的标志性法律——中针对低级官员的免职保护条款违反宪法第二条，而 merit systems 保护委员会对此表示赞同。
代表杰克勒和雅罗奇的律师纳撒尼尔·泽林斯基对哥伦比亚广播公司新闻表示：“政府在杰克勒案中的论点可能太过宽泛，以至于意味着总统可以随意解雇每一名公务员。本案的核心问题是，这个国家能否保留公务员制度，还是说总统可以随心所欲地解雇任何人，无论何时、出于任何理由。”
他补充道：“如果总统在本案中胜诉，这不仅意味着梅根·杰克勒和布兰登·雅罗奇可以被随意解雇，还可能意味着联邦政府中数百万联邦雇员中的每一个人都将无法免受任意解雇、歧视和报复。”
总统解雇主要官员的权力
在 merit systems 保护委员会作出上述裁决之际，最高法院正在审理特朗普诉斯劳特案，该案源于总统解雇联邦贸易委员会委员丽贝卡·斯劳特。斯劳特于2025年3月被解职，不久后杰克勒和雅罗奇失去了移民法官的职位。
在首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨撰写的多数意见中，法院的保守派多数表示，国会不能让总统“绑定”他“无法共事的官员”。
“行使总统权力的下属应受总统免职，”罗伯茨写道。“唯有如此，他们才能对总统负责，总统才能对人民负责。”
该裁决可能会对数十个其他独立的多成员机构产生影响。此前国会为使这些机构免受政治影响，规定总统只能因正当理由——通常是效率低下、玩忽职守或在职渎职——才能解雇其成员。
虽然这起最高法院案件仅涉及总统罢免主要官员的权力，但法律学者指出，罗伯茨意见中的措辞可以被解读为适用于这些官员之外的人群。
“我们的先例证实了文本、历史和结构所确定的原则：总统可以随意罢免其下属，”天主教大学法学教授乔尔·阿利萨引用罗伯茨的裁决说道。“这番话似乎并未局限于主要官员。该意见并未经常提及主要官员，似乎只是聚焦于所有行政权力都归于总统这一逻辑，因此任何行使该权力的人都必须可被随意罢免。如果这一逻辑成立，那么低级官员和雇员显然也包含在内。”
司法部已经在其他法律纠纷中辩称，最高法院的裁决支持了其认为联邦雇员可被随意解雇的观点。
援引罗伯茨的多数意见，司法部律师在7月为特朗普解雇联邦紧急事务管理局官员玛丽·科曼斯的行为辩护时写道：“唯有总统能够自由罢免行使这些职能的官员——即科曼斯女士此前在其职位上行使的职能——总统才能对行政部门的‘一切事务’亲自负责。”
一名联邦法官在7月裁定科曼斯的解雇行为非法。司法部已就该裁决提起上诉。
“如果我是处理这些案件的司法部工作人员，我会做的第一件事就是援引斯劳特案，并辩称斯劳特案表明我们可以罢免下属。雇员和低级官员都是下属，因此本案受斯劳特案管辖，”贝德纳说。“首席大法官为他们提供了这样的依据。如果首席大法官当时只就主要官员撰写意见，斯劳特案就不会给他们多少可援引的内容。”
相反，通过宽泛地谈及“下属”，贝德纳表示，这“提出了公务员制度和低级官员是否会成为下一个目标的问题”。
最高法院取消对某些独立机构成员免职保护的裁决，是一系列削弱1935年一项裁决的判决的顶峰。1935年的裁决允许国会限制总统随意解雇这些官员的权力。法院的保守派多数在6月正式推翻了这项新政时代的先例。
但在过去140年里的一系列判决中——最近一次是在2021年——最高法院维持了公务员制度，并重申国会可以“限制和约束”对低级官员的免职。
罗伯茨在6月审理斯劳特案的意见中指出，法院并未“决定未提交本案的官员的命运”。在一份协同意见中，大法官尼尔·戈萨奇强调了公务员法，称其“通常为普通文职雇员提供了相当大的免受解雇的保护”。不过他补充道，总统可以“通过重新分类雇员的职位，使其不受这些法律约束”，从而“寻求对联邦雇员施加更大控制”。
“我们认为，政府在本案中面临很高的举证门槛，”泽林斯基说。“我们认为，这些公务员法合宪的论据非常有力。它们深深植根于国家的历史、传统和先例。如果宪法赋予总统不仅解雇数百万联邦雇员的权力，还允许他们基于党派立场、宗教信仰、性别对雇员进行歧视，那将令人震惊。”
尽管如此，在6月斯劳特案的不同意见中，大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔警告称，该裁决可能对“低级官员和公务员雇员产生重大影响”。她说，多数意见“充其量将这些问题留给未来多年的不确定性，最坏的情况则可能危及适用于公务员的就业保护的终结”。
“本院似乎相当致力于形式主义和文本主义立场，即所有行政权力都归于总统，”阿利萨说。“如果这是真的，很难想象这不会延伸到低级官员，因此我认为他们可能会得出符合逻辑的结论。”
Trump’s firings of federal officials set stage for next test of presidential power
August 7, 2026 / 10:20 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court just over a month ago expanded presidential power when it struck down removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission, clearing the way for the president to fire members of certain independent boards and commissions at-will.
But as the high court considered the legality of Congress’ efforts to shield those officials from political pressure, legal fights arising from President Trump’s attempts to fire an array of other federal workers — from Justice Department lawyers to immigration judges to FBI agents— have been moving through the federal courts.
The cases could pose the next test of presidential power and have significant implications for civil service protections that have been in place since the late 1970s and the federal workers covered by them, legal scholars say.
“The question of whether we can have a civil service staffed by individuals who are selected and retained based on their expertise, qualifications and employment performance, rather than the political ideology of the president is the entire foundation of our modern system of administrative governance,” Nicholas Bednar, a University of Minnesota law professor who has studied the civil service, told CBS News.
Since the start of his second term, Mr. Trump has undertaken sweeping efforts to reshape the federal government. As part of his plans, which include downsizing the executive branch, more than 25,000 government workers who were still in their probationary periods were terminated and agencies implemented plans for mass layoffs, called reductions in force.
But for hundreds of other civil servants — those considered “inferior officers,” as well as employees — the president has invoked Article II of the Constitution to fire them outside of procedures dictated by civil service laws, arguing it is an exercise of his executive power. “Inferior” executive branch officials may be appointed by the president or the head of a department, and they’re generally supervised by principal officers, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Trump’s firings of those federal officials are now on a track headed for the Supreme Court, as a federal appeals court is poised to hear arguments this fall in a case brought by two former immigration judges, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, who were terminated in February 2025. While cases before appeals courts are typically heard first by three-judge panels, the Federal Circuit in June granted Jackler and Jaroch’s request for its full slate of judges to consider their case from the outset — an indication that it recognizes the importance of the dispute.
“This is the case that is going to go to the Supreme Court to test this issue,” Bednar said of whether the president has the power to remove federal employees without cause.
Jackler and Jaroch’s case landed before the Federal Circuit after the Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears appeals from federal employees of adverse actions, ruled in favor of the Justice Department. In a little-noticed March decision, the board found that “no entity, including Congress or the Board, may place restrictions” on the president’s removal authority, “for doing so would infringe upon the president’s ability to faithfully execute the laws.”
The Justice Department had argued that Article II invalidated removal protections for inferior officers under the Civil Service Reform Act, a landmark law enacted in 1978 that provides protections for federal workers, and the Merit Systems Protection Board agreed.
“The government’s argument in Jackler is potentially so sweeping it would mean the president could fire every single civil servant at will,” Nathaniel Zelinsky, a lawyer representing Jackler and Jaroch, told CBS News. “The issue in this case is about whether this country can have civil service laws at all or instead, whether the president can fire whomever he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason.”
He continued: “If the president is right in this case, it doesn’t mean that just Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch can be fired at will. It would likely mean that every single one of the millions of federal workers throughout the federal government would not be protected from arbitrary abuse, discrimination and retaliation.”
Trump’s power to fire principal officers
The decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board came as the Supreme Court was considering the case Trump v. Slaughter, which arose out of the president’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter was ousted from her role in March 2025, soon after Jackler and Jaroch lost their jobs as immigration judges.
In a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court’s conservative majority said Congress cannot “saddle” the president with officials “with whom he cannot work.”
“Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him,” Roberts wrote. “Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
The decision is likely to have ramifications for dozens of other independent multi-member agencies, which Congress sought to insulate from politics by allowing the president to remove their members only for cause — typically instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
While that case before the Supreme Court solely involved the president’s ability to remove principal officers, legal scholars noted that the language in Roberts’ opinion can be read to apply beyond those officials.
“‘What text, history and structure settle, our precedent confirms: the president may remove his subordinates at will.’ That’s pretty broad,” said Joel Alicea, a law professor at Catholic University, quoting Roberts’ decision. “That language does not seem to limit itself to principal officers. The opinion does not often focus on principal officers. It seems to just focus on the logic of all the executive powers being vested in the president, so anyone who’s exercising that power has to be removable at will. Well, if that’s the logic, that arguably includes inferior officers and employees, too.”
And already, the Justice Department has argued in other legal battles that the Supreme Court’s decision bolsters its view that federal employees can be fired at will.
Citing Roberts’ majority opinion, Justice Department lawyers wrote in a July filing defending Mr. Trump’s firing of Mary Comans from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, “The president can only be ‘personally responsible for everything’ in the Executive Branch if he is personally responsible for — and therefore able to freely remove — officials exercising those functions Ms. Comans exercised in her former role.”
A federal judge ruled in July that Comans’ firing was unlawful. The Justice Department has appealed the decision.
“If I’m the Justice Department working on any of these cases, the first thing I do is cite Slaughter and say Slaughter says we can remove subordinates. Employees and inferior officers are subordinates, ergo this case is covered by Slaughter,” Bednar said. “The chief gave them that fuel. The chief could’ve written an opinion that just said principal officers, and Slaughter wouldn’t have given them much to go off of.”
Instead, by talking broadly about “subordinates,” Bednar said, it “raises this question of whether the civil service and inferior officers might be next.”
The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating removal protections for members of certain independent agencies capped a string of rulings that chipped away at a 1935 decision that allowed Congress to limit the president’s ability to fire those officials at will. The court’s conservative majority officially overruled that New Deal-era precedent in June.
But the high court has in a series of decisions over the last 140 years — most recently in 2021 — upheld the civil service system and reaffirmed that Congress can “limit and restrict” the removal of inferior officers.
In his June opinion in Slaughter’s case, Roberts noted that the court did not “determine the fate of officials not before us.” And in a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted civil service laws, writing they “ordinarily afford rank-and-file agency employees considerable protection against removal.” Still, he added that a president can “seek to exert greater control” over federal workers by reclassifying their roles to be outside the reach of those laws.
“The government certainly faces, we think, a high hurdle in this case,” Zelinsky said. “We think the arguments for these civil service laws being constitutional are incredibly strong. They are deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and precedent. It would be astonishing if the Constitution granted the president the authority not just to fire millions of federal workers, but to affirmatively discriminate against them on the basis of their partisanship, their religion, their sex.”
Still, in a dissenting opinion in the Slaughter case in June, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the ruling could have “major implications for inferior officers and civil-service employees.” The majority, she said, “at best consigns these issues to years of future uncertainty and at worst risks the end of the employment protections that apply to members of the civil service.”
“This court does seem pretty committed to the formalist and textualist position that all executive power is vested in the president,” Alicea said. “If that is true, it is hard to see how that does not extend to inferior officers, so I would think they might carry it to that logical conclusion.”