Key Points

  • The D.C. Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction barring the U.S. Agency for Global Media from removing Voice of America head Michael Abramowitz without the approval of a majority of the International Broadcasting Advisory Board.
  • The court held that the Civil Service Reform Act did not strip the district court of jurisdiction, because 22 U.S.C. § 6205(e) protects network independence and can work only if it is promptly enforceable in court.
  • The court held that § 6205(e) is consistent with Article II: Congress may vest removal of an inferior officer in a department head, and because the president can remove board members at will, he retains control over network heads through the board.
  • The court did not decide whether Trump v. Slaughter's at-will removal rule extends to inferior officers.
  • The court held that the district court had equitable power to enjoin subordinate officials from carrying out the unlawful removal, citing Swan v. Clinton and Trump v. Cook.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld an order barring the U.S. Agency for Global Media from removing Michael Abramowitz as director of Voice of America. The court held that a 2021 law giving an independent board the final say over firing the broadcaster's chief does not violate the president's constitutional powers.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction that a district judge entered on Aug. 28, 2025. The injunction bars agency officials "from removing Plaintiff Abramowitz from his position as [head] of Voice of America without the approval of a majority of the [Broadcasting Board]." Judge Pillard wrote for the court, joined by Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judge Pan.

The ruling keeps Abramowitz in place while the board that must approve any removal is nearly empty. The panel held that because the president can fire the board's members at will, he keeps control over network heads through that board. It also held that network heads may sue directly in federal district court rather than first pursuing a civil-service appeal.

The United States created Voice of America during World War II to counter Nazi propaganda with fact-based reporting, the opinion recounted. After the agency's then-chief executive, Michael Pack, fired several network heads in 2020, Congress responded in 2021 by making the International Broadcasting Advisory Board a separate agency of seven Senate-confirmed members. The law provides that network heads "may only be appointed or removed if such action has been approved by a majority vote" of the board.

Abramowitz was appointed in April 2024 with the board's unanimous approval. According to the opinion, President Trump fired six of the seven board members after taking office in January 2025. He then issued an executive order directing that the agency's non-statutory functions be eliminated. Agency officials, including then-Senior Advisor Kari Lake, placed Abramowitz and about 1,300 other Voice of America employees on indefinite administrative leave.

In July 2025, with the board lacking a quorum, the officials told Abramowitz he would be reassigned to a post as chief management officer in Greenville, North Carolina, and removed if he refused. He declined, and a letter dated Aug. 1, 2025, informed him of his removal. The district court then granted him partial summary judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The government first argued that the Civil Service Reform Act, which sends most federal personnel disputes to the Merit Systems Protection Board, stripped the district court of jurisdiction. The panel disagreed. "The CSRA offers no mechanism for keeping a network head in the job; the MSPB lacks power to award preliminary relief," Pillard wrote.

The court described the 2021 removal provision as protecting the networks' independence, not the government's interests as an employer. "It is not a standard employment law, but a durable barrier against any breach of the firewall protecting the journalistic integrity of Voice of America and the affiliate networks," Pillard wrote. Even assuming the civil-service law otherwise applied, the court held, the 2021 statute restored district court jurisdiction over claims like Abramowitz's.

On the merits, the government conceded that it removed Abramowitz in violation of the statute and raised one defense: that the removal limits violate Article II. Both sides agreed that Abramowitz is an inferior officer, and the government did not dispute that the board could be treated as a department head, one of the entities in which the Constitution lets Congress vest such appointments.

The panel rejected each strand of the government's argument. It held that Morrison v. Olson, the 1988 decision upholding court appointment of independent counsels, foreclosed the claim that only the head of the employing agency may control an inferior officer. Citing Trump v. Slaughter, the panel said the government had not disputed that the president can remove the board's members at will. The court declined to decide whether Slaughter's at-will removal rule extends to inferior officers.

It did not need to, Pillard wrote, because the statute "secures the President's ability to remove Abramowitz for any or no reason—albeit more indirectly than defendants would like." Relying on the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the court reasoned that presidential control runs through the board. "Given that the Broadcasting Board is subject to at-will presidential removal, Abramowitz is effectively subject to the same," the opinion said.

The government had argued that spreading removal power across a multimember board effectively shields Abramowitz. The court acknowledged that "the President might face delay if he had to fire and replace a majority of the Board to effectuate his removal decision." But it held that such delay is attributable to the Appointments Clause itself, which requires Senate confirmation of principal officers.

The panel also upheld the injunction as a remedy, citing circuit precedent and the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Cook. The government, the court wrote, pointed "to nothing to counter his contention that no other form of relief would redress his injury."

Elizabeth T. Hedges of the Justice Department argued for the government. William B. Schultz argued for Abramowitz.

The affirmance leaves the injunction in force. Under the statute, Abramowitz can be removed only with a majority vote of the board, or by a vote of five or more members acting on their own. "Six of the seven seats on the Broadcasting Board remain empty," the court noted, and filling them requires Senate confirmation.