Supreme Court Puts Off Decision on Copyright Office Leadership
The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Wednesday, November 26, 2025, that it would defer a decision on the Trump administration's request to remove Shira Perlmutter, the current head of the U.S. Copyright Office. The Court indicated it would not act on the government's application to pause a lower court's ruling that had temporarily reinstated Perlmutter, choosing instead to await rulings on two other significant cases concerning presidential firing authority.
This deferral means that Perlmutter will remain in her position as Register of Copyrights for the time being. The high court's decision was issued in a brief, unsigned order, though Justice Clarence Thomas noted he would have granted the administration's request to remove her.
Context of the Dispute
The legal battle began in May 2025 when the Trump administration fired Shira Perlmutter. Her dismissal followed the release of a Copyright Office report on artificial intelligence that allegedly contained recommendations with which the administration disagreed. Perlmutter subsequently challenged her removal in federal court, arguing that the president lacked the authority to dismiss her. She contended that her role as Register of Copyrights is a legislative, not executive, position, as the Copyright Office operates within the Library of Congress.
A U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly initially rejected her request for temporary reinstatement. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed that ruling, instructing the Trump administration to allow Perlmutter to resume her duties. The full appeals court upheld this decision, prompting the administration to seek intervention from the Supreme Court on October 27, 2025.
Legal Arguments and Broader Implications
The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued to the justices that even though the Copyright Office is housed within the Library of Congress, the Register of Copyrights 'wields executive power' by issuing regulations and enforcing copyright laws, thus making the position subject to presidential removal. Conversely, Perlmutter maintained that the Library of Congress is not an 'executive agency' and that her appointment by the Librarian of Congress signifies her role as a legislative officer, not an executive one.
The Supreme Court's decision to defer action on Perlmutter's case is linked to two other high-profile cases it plans to hear: Trump v. Slaughter, involving Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, and Trump v. Cook, concerning Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Arguments for these cases are scheduled for December and January, respectively. These cases collectively represent a significant test of the president's authority to remove officials from independent agencies and those with ties to the legislative branch, potentially reshaping the balance of power between the executive and other branches of government.
Shira Perlmutter's Background
Shira Perlmutter was appointed as the 14th Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office in October 2020 by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. Prior to this role, she served as Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) since 2012. Her extensive career also includes positions at the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), Time Warner, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), as well as a period as a law professor specializing in intellectual property.
5 Comments
Africa
It's understandable that the court wants to consider the broader implications with the other cases, but this delay prolongs a politically charged situation that could impact important intellectual property policy.
Habibi
Perlmutter clearly disagreed with the admin. She should be gone.
Kyle Broflovski
SCOTUS made the right call here. No rush on such a critical issue.
Stan Marsh
What a joke. The President needs control over his own administration.
Eric Cartman
While it's good to ensure proper legal process, this deferral leaves a lot of uncertainty about presidential power. It's a tricky balance between executive authority and agency independence.