The Merit Systems Protection Board is no longer describing itself as “independent,” after a Supreme Court ruling last month expanded the president’s powers to fire heads of agencies that, for decades, have been deliberately insulated from presidential control.

Internal agency communications viewed by Federal News Network confirm that MSPB leadership has directed staff not to use the word “independent” when describing the board in job announcements.

The lack of the word “independent” in MSPB’s self-description appears in a recent posting on USAJobs for an attorney-advisor. In a summary on the job announcement, the board is described as a “quasi-judicial agency that serves as the guardian of the federal merit systems.”

And as of July, the word “independent” has been removed from the “about” section of MSPB’s website. The descriptor also no longer appears on the board’s LinkedIn page.

MSPB’s website previously described the board as “an independent, quasi-judicial agency.” Now, the description only says the board is “quasi-judicial.”

Some other materials from MSPB, however, still contain the word “independent,” such as a webpage listing appellant questions and answers.

In a statement to Federal News Network, MSPB spokesperson Zachary Kurz said, “The word ‘independent’ is being removed from public-facing agency descriptions in light of recent legal developments and the Supreme Court’s decision in Slaughter.”

MSPB’s adjudicatory functions remain unchanged, Kurz added.

Congress created MSPB in 1978 under the Civil Service Reform Act, setting up an independent agency to adjudicate appeals from federal employees who allege prohibited personnel practices by their agencies.

But the nature of MSPB leadership decisions is set to change, following a Supreme Court ruling in June that upheld the removal of former Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, who Trump fired without cause despite a provision of federal law that requires a reason.

The court held that presidents have free rein to fire agency heads at-will, upending a 91-year-old decision called Humphrey’s Executor that had limited the president’s firing authority for decades. Though the Supreme Court ruling involves FTC leadership, the logic of the Trump v. Slaughter decision extends to other independent agencies, including MSPB.

The National Labor Relations Board, another agency that may be affected by the Slaughter decision, still describes itself as “independent” on its official website.

Raymond Limon, a long-time career civil servant and former Democratic MSPB member who retired in early 2025, emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Slaughter case addressed presidential authority over agency leaders, but it did not amend the Civil Service Reform Act, nor did it redefine the board’s statutory role.

“Whether the board itself now believes its institutional independence has changed is a separate question — and one that deserves an explanation from the agency,” Limon told Federal News Network.

“The issue isn’t whether one word disappeared from a webpage. The issue is whether the Merit Systems Protection Board — the tribunal Congress created to provide independent review of federal personnel actions — is walking away from its own institutional independence, and if so, who made that decision and on what authority,” Limon continued. “I think the public, and especially the federal employees whose cases depend on that independence, deserve the answer.”

In early 2025, Trump fired other independent agency leaders, including MSPB’s Cathy Harris, a Democrat. Harris sued Trump last year over her termination, but her firing was later upheld in an appeals court.

Earlier this year, Harris petitioned her case to the Supreme Court. In an April amicus brief, Senate Democrats warned that if Harris’ termination was upheld, it would weaken agencies’ independence and upend decades of precedent. The Supreme Court later declined to review Harris’ case.

MSPB has made other significant changes to its internal operations in recent months. In June, it issued regulations in conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management, seeking to overhaul the procedures agencies use when firing employees, as well as the adverse action review process at the board.

And in March, MSPB upheld the firings of two DOJ immigration judges, reversing an administrative judge’s initial ruling last August. In their decision, MSPB members Henry Kerner and James Woodruff, both Republicans, stated that the board does not have jurisdiction to intervene in agency firing decisions that cite constitutional authority.

In June, the New York Times reported that the White House had been heavily involved in conversations leading up to MSPB’s decision to recuse itself from those types of firings.

The board is also poised to lose its authority in deciding several types of federal employee appeals. The Trump administration has proposed various regulations to move appeals processes for employee removals due to a suitability action, a probationary period firing and a reduction in force (RIF) to OPM rather than MSPB.

The White House also recently converted MSPB attorney-advisors and supervisory attorney-advisors to Schedule Policy/Career — stripping employees in those positions of their civil service protections and making them at-will and easier to fire. The board is now hiring for “one or more attorneys” to hold those positions.

MSPB’s latest decision to remove the descriptor of independent raises a “serious legal question,” Limon said, asking, “If the board no longer describes itself as independent, does that affect confidence in the adjudicative process employees are being required to use?”

The Associated Press contributed reporting.

If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email drew.friedman@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at drewfriedman.11

Copyright © 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.