A divided federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that President Donald Trump likely overstepped his authority by attempting to remove the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, marking a significant judicial check on executive power.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocked Trump’s effort to oust Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, who was appointed by the Librarian of Congress to advise Congress on intellectual property matters. The majority opinion stated that the firing constituted “blatant interference” with a legislative branch official and violated the constitutional separation of powers.
Background of the Case
Shira Perlmutter, who had served as Register of Copyrights since 2020, was fired by Trump in May 2025 after she prepared a report for Congress on artificial intelligence that the president allegedly disagreed with. Perlmutter sued to retain her position, arguing that the Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch, not the executive, and thus beyond the president’s removal authority.
Following Perlmutter’s dismissal, Trump installed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, one of his former private attorneys, as the acting Librarian of Congress. Blanche then appointed another Justice Department official, Paul Perkins, to replace Perlmutter. The court also found Blanche’s appointment likely unlawful, as he has not been confirmed by the Senate.
Court’s Reasoning and Dissent
The majority opinion, written by Judge Florence Pan, emphasized that the Copyright Office serves a legislative function by advising Congress, placing it outside the president’s direct control. “The Executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a Legislative Branch official, as she performs statutorily authorized duties to advise Congress, strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers,” Pan wrote. The court drew a parallel between Perlmutter’s role and that of a federal judge’s law clerk, implying that executive interference would undermine congressional independence.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that Supreme Court precedents have consistently reinforced the president’s authority to remove executive officials. Walker stated that the court should not intervene in this matter, citing recent rulings that favored presidential discretion over removals.
Broader Implications
This case is part of a broader pattern of legal challenges testing the limits of presidential power over appointees in independent agencies and legislative branch entities. The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and judicial branches, particularly in areas where Trump has sought to exert control over traditionally independent functions.
The decision also comes amid heightened rhetoric from the Trump administration regarding judicial authority. Vice President JD Vance has previously suggested that Trump should defy court orders if they impede executive actions, a position that legal scholars warn could precipitate a constitutional crisis.
Response and Next Steps
The White House has not immediately commented on the ruling. However, Trump has consistently criticized judicial decisions that oppose his policies, often labeling them as partisan obstacles.
Perlmutter’s legal team, represented by the advocacy group Democracy Forward, hailed the decision as a victory for the separation of powers and the rule of law. “The President does not have the authority to remove the Register of Copyrights or to install his own officials to run the nation’s library,” said Brian Netter, Legal Director at Democracy Forward.
The case is expected to proceed to a full appeal, with the potential to reach the Supreme Court. Legal experts note that the Supreme Court has recently been deferential to presidential removal power, but this case presents unique questions about the boundaries between branches of government.
Conclusion
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining checks and balances, particularly in disputes involving the separation of powers. As the Trump administration continues to push the boundaries of executive authority, this case may become a landmark in defining the limits of presidential power over non-executive agencies.
