The Supreme Court quietly denied a petition this week in a case about the removal of an independent agency official, handing the Biden administration a setback in an unusual way and marking another defensive victory for the Trump appointees now running the government. The denial came via the court’s routine Monday order list and involved Todd Harper, a former member of the National Credit Union Administration Board, who sought review after a lower court sided with him. The ruling may seem procedural, but it matters because it preserves the stay the appeals court put in place and keeps the administration’s actions intact for now. This piece explains what happened, why the order list matters, and why conservatives should take notice.
The short version: Harper sued after being removed from the NCUA board, won at the district court level, and then faced a stay from the D.C. Circuit pending appeal. Harper pressed his case by asking the Supreme Court to step in quickly through a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The high court declined that request via its Monday order list, which is how the Court frequently handles emergency and procedural matters without full briefing or argument. What looks small on the docket can have real, immediate effects on the balance of power in Washington.
The facts are tidy. Todd Harper, identified in court filings as a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board, challenged his removal and sued several officials in the executive branch. The district court granted summary judgment to Harper in July, but the administration appealed and the D.C. Circuit stayed that judgment in August while the appeal moved forward. Rather than wait, Harper filed an emergency petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case before the appeals court finished its work.
Then came the Supreme Court’s routine orders. The 112425 order list included one line about the Harper matter, and that single line resolved the immediate question by denying the petition. The court often issues these compiled lists on Mondays to dispose of many procedural requests at once, and this was one such disposition. For a conservative observer, the result is straightforward: the status quo favoring the administration’s stay remained in place, so the district court judgment does not take effect while the appeals process continues.
25-367 HARPER, TODD M., ET AL. V. BESSENT, SEC. TREASURY, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.
The denial was submitted without recorded opinion, and that’s common. The Court doesn’t always explain why it denies a petition, especially when it is a request to leapfrog the normal appellate process. But context matters: several cases about the removal protections of independent agency officials have been winding toward the Court, and just because one emergency petition was denied does not mean the Court is closed to the broader constitutional questions. Still, the immediate effect is favorable to the administration by keeping the appeals court stay intact.
This is part of a pattern where the Trump administration’s positions have tended to fare well at the Supreme Court, whether on procedural moves or substantive rulings. When the Court punts on a narrow procedural question like a petition before judgment, that often preserves the status quo and buys time for the government to defend its decisions. That kind of defensive success matters in the real world, where staying a lower court order can prevent immediate disruptions to agency operations and policy implementation.
For Republican readers tracking the courts, small procedural wins add up. The Harper denial shows the value of appellate strategy and the importance of staying lower court decisions while appeals progress. It also highlights how the Supreme Court manages its docket: many important outcomes arrive not with headlines about full opinions but quietly through routine orders that shape the law’s immediate effect on the government.
Looking ahead, the appeal in the D.C. Circuit will proceed, and the conservative legal community will be watching closely for how removal doctrine cases evolve. The Supreme Court’s handling of related cases could still alter the legal landscape on independent agency leadership, but this particular certiorari-before-judgment request did not advance. For now, the administration keeps the edge provided by the stay, and that is a tangible outcome worth noting.
Add comment