Recent changes to the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) public messaging have sparked interest across the federal workforce, raising critical questions about the evolving status of federal employee protections.

Following recent court decisions that strengthened presidential oversight of agencies traditionally viewed as independent, the MSPB has quietly eliminated references to itself as an “independent” agency from sections of its website and other public communications.

The MSPB as a Safeguard

The MSPB has long served as a critical safeguard of the federal merit system, hearing appeals involving removals, suspensions, demotions and retaliation claims. The MSPB is a quasi-judicial agency first established in 1978 under the Civil Service Reform Act and has since aimed to protect federal employees from unfair personnel actions and ensure merit procedures are followed.

But after the Supreme Court expanded Presidential authority to remove leaders of previously independent agencies in its Trump v. Slaughter decision (decided June 29, 2026), MSPB officials have removed references to itself as an “independent” agency from portions of its public-facing materials, a change that has prompted questions about whether the Board is reassessing how it characterizes its institutional status. Specifically, prior versions of the MSPB website described the Board as “an independent, quasi-judicial agency,” while current versions of certain MSPB webpages no longer include the term “independent.”

Questions About the MSPB’s Independence and Impartiality

For the millions of federal employees who depend on the MSPB to review disciplinary actions and other employment disputes, the move raises important questions about the future perception of the Board’s independence and impartiality. Specifically, in Slaughter, the Supreme Court held that the President generally has the constitutional authority to remove leaders of executive-branch agencies, striking down the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) “for-cause” removal protections and overturning the 1935 precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

The removal of the Board’s description of itself as “independent” is not the first time the Board has faced scrutiny from federal employees. The MSPB operated without a quorum for more than five years (2017–2022), preventing the Board from adjudicating petitions for review and causing a substantial accumulation of unresolved federal employment cases. Board member vacancies were not filled through Senate confirmation, leaving the agency without the minimum number of members required to adjudicate appeals and issue final decisions

What Other Agencies Are No Longer Considered Independent?  

While the Slaughter decision directly involved the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), its reasoning extends to many other multi-member commissions in addition to the MSPB whose members previously enjoyed statutory protection from presidential removal. Legal analysts and court commentators have identified agencies such as the following as likely affected:

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
• Numerous other agencies with similar multi-member bipartisan commission structures and removal protections. Commentators estimate roughly two dozen agencies could be affected.

It should be noted that on the same day, in Trump v. Cook, the Court preserved removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve Board, creating a significant exception to the general rule announced in Slaughter.

Impact on Federal Employees

The above-listed agencies still exist, and Congress has not abolished them. However, after the Slaughter decision, their leaders will now generally serve at the President’s pleasure rather than being insulated by “for-cause” removal protections. As a result, many agencies historically described as “independent” are now viewed as substantially more accountable to presidential control.

Federal employees rely on the MSPB to provide an impartial check on agency actions, and while the Board says its adjudicatory functions remain unchanged, the decision to stop identifying itself as an independent agency raises legitimate concerns about public confidence in the neutrality of the institution.

While the MSPB’s adjudicatory authority remains unchanged, some observers have questioned whether the Board’s altered description of its status could affect public confidence in its perceived neutrality.

Federal workers deserve assurance that their appeals will continue to be decided based on the law and the facts, not politics.

If you have questions about your rights as a federal employee, Tully Rinckey’s team of dedicated federal employment attorneys is available to assist. Please call 8885294543 to schedule a consultation, or schedule a consultation online.

 Michael C. Fallings focuses his practice on federal sector labor and employment law. Michael has extensive experience litigating cases on behalf of employees at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and in both state and federal courts. He also has experience negotiating settlement agreements on behalf of federal employees. Michael has received numerous awards, including the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, LawDragon 500 the Next Generation (2024-25), Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers (2025), National Black Lawyers Top 40 under 40, and Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023).