Supreme Court Delays Trump’s Bid to Oust Copyright Chief, Sparking Clash Over Presidential Power in Divided Washington

By Adam Liptak and Charlie Savage Washington — Nov. 29, 2025

The Supreme Court, in a move that reverberated through the marble corridors of power on Friday, deferred a decision on President Donald J. Trump’s aggressive attempt to remove Shira Perlmutter, the government’s top copyright official, effectively blocking his immediate takeover of the office for now. The order, issued without explanation in a one-paragraph filing, has ignited a high-stakes constitutional showdown, pitting Mr. Trump’s expansive vision of executive authority against congressional defenders of independent agencies. With the ruling landing amid a cascade of legal challenges to the president’s second-term agenda — from mass deportations to federal workforce purges — Democrats hailed it as a vital check on “Trump’s authoritarian playbook,” while Republican leaders decried it as judicial overreach that threatens America’s competitive edge in creative industries.

The dispute centers on Ms. Perlmutter, 71, the register of copyrights and director of the U.S. Copyright Office, a quasi-independent entity housed within the Library of Congress that advises Congress on intellectual property laws affecting everything from Hollywood blockbusters to AI-generated art. Appointed in 2016 during the Obama administration, she oversees a staff of 400 and wields influence over billions in licensing fees and international treaties. In May, Mr. Trump moved to oust her, citing her “woke” resistance to his proposed expansions of copyright exemptions for right-wing media outlets and his plans to fast-track protections for noncitizen creators in deference to tech donors like Elon Musk. To install a loyalist — Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former personal lawyer — Mr. Trump named Mr. Blanche acting Librarian of Congress, asserting unilateral executive control over what he called a “bureaucratic backwater.”

Ms. Perlmutter sued in federal district court, arguing that the Copyright Office operates as a legislative adjunct, insulated from presidential whims under the 1976 Copyright Act, which vests oversight in the librarian — a post Congress created to buffer the agency from political interference. A district judge initially sided with Mr. Trump, but a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed in October, reinstating her and blocking the takeover pending full review. The Trump administration raced to the Supreme Court on Nov. 20, urging emergency intervention to lift the stay and warning of “paralysis in our IP defenses against China.”

The court’s terse order — “The application for stay pending certiorari… is denied” — came after a shadow docket conference, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting alone in a brief statement that he would have granted the request to avoid “further erosion of executive prerogative.” The majority signaled it would fold the case into arguments already scheduled for January in two related disputes: one over Mr. Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commission Democrat Rebecca Slaughter for probing Musk’s X platform, and another challenging his bid to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook amid tariff wars. “This isn’t a punt; it’s a firewall,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, the liberal legal group representing Ms. Perlmutter. “The court’s saying: We’ll tackle Trump’s power grab holistically, not piecemeal.”

Mr. Trump, monitoring from Mar-a-Lago during a post-Thanksgiving strategy huddle, erupted on Truth Social within hours: “Crooked SCOTUS blocks my WIN on Copyrights — CHINA LAUGHS! Deep State judges protecting their swamp pals. We’ll FIGHT BACK — America First means TOTAL CONTROL!” The post, viewed over 10 million times, drew rebukes from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who in a rare public note urged “restraint in public discourse on the judiciary.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt framed the deferral as a temporary setback, insisting Mr. Blanche would assume duties “by operation of law” and teasing executive orders to bypass the office altogether.

The ruling has supercharged a broader power fight convulsing Washington. Since January, Mr. Trump has sought to consolidate control over independent bodies, firing inspectors general at the EPA and SEC, reclassifying civil servants under Schedule F and invoking the Alien Enemies Act for warrantless deportations — moves rebuffed in over 700 lower-court cases, including 225 by judges appointed by presidents from both parties. A June Supreme Court decision curbing “universal injunctions” — nationwide blocks on policies — handed Mr. Trump a partial victory, limiting judges’ scope but leaving class-action suits and administrative stays intact. Critics, including Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called Friday’s order a “seismic rebuke,” tying it to the court’s July ruling upholding birthright citizenship challenges as class actions, which stalled Mr. Trump’s executive order ending the practice.

Republicans, sensing vulnerability ahead of 2026 midterms, rallied to Mr. Trump’s side. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who navigated a holiday revolt over shutdown fallout, blasted the deferral on the floor as “judicial activism crippling our innovation economy.” Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, vowed to haul Ms. Perlmutter before the Judiciary Committee, accusing her of blocking “MAGA-friendly” reforms like shorter copyright terms for conservative podcasters. Yet fissures emerged: Moderate Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., whose district flipped in off-year races, joined a bipartisan letter praising the court for “upholding congressional intent.”

Democrats seized the moment to amplify the stakes. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., held a news conference flanked by Hollywood executives and tech whistleblowers, decrying Mr. Trump’s moves as a “hostile takeover of checks and balances.” “This isn’t about copyrights; it’s about control — from SNAP cuts to deportation dragnets,” Mr. Jeffries said, referencing the court’s November denial of Mr. Trump’s plea to withhold $4 billion in food aid during the shutdown. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., scheduled emergency hearings for December, subpoenaing Mr. Blanche over potential conflicts from his Trump defense work.

For Ms. Perlmutter, a copyright law scholar with decades at the World Intellectual Property Organization, the limbo is personal. “I serve Congress, not any one president,” she told reporters outside her D.C. office, her voice steady amid protests chanting “Defend Democracy.” Allies like the Authors Guild warned of chaos: Without her, licensing for AI training data — a $100 billion market — could grind to a halt, echoing stalled SNAP distributions that left 42 million hungry during the 43-day shutdown.

The case underscores the Supreme Court’s delicate dance in Mr. Trump’s orbit. With three justices — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — appointed by him, the conservative majority has delivered wins, like curbing nationwide injunctions. But Friday’s deferral, joined by Roberts and even Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., signals wariness of overreach. “The court’s threading a needle: Empower Trump without dismantling the guardrails,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor. On X, #TrumpTakeoverBlocked trended with 1.5 million posts, from MAGA memes of robed justices as “deep state puppets” to viral clips of Mr. Trump’s 1990s praise for Epstein — a separate scandal fueling transparency demands.

As Thanksgiving’s glow fades, the power fight looms larger. Mr. Trump’s team floats workarounds, like a midnight executive order reclassifying the office under Homeland Security. But with oral arguments months away and midterms on the horizon, the deferral may prove a shockwave: In a capital of divided loyalties, the court’s pause isn’t just delay — it’s a declaration that even presidents can’t rewrite the rules overnight. For Mr. Trump, whose 2024 vow of “total authority” now collides with constitutional speed bumps, the lesson is stark: Takeovers, like tariffs or deportations, demand not just will, but warrants.