In a significant legal battle that could redefine executive authority over federal appointees, the Trump administration has approached the US Supreme Court, seeking permission to dismiss Shira Perlmutter, the current Register of Copyrights. This move follows an injunction from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which temporarily halted the administration's efforts to remove Perlmutter from her role.

The core of the administration's argument hinges on the assertion that the president holds the authority to direct the removal of the Register through the Librarian of Congress, who is responsible for appointing and supervising the Register. This interpretation stems from the administration's broader view that both the Register and the Librarian execute executive functions, including the issuance of rules, administrative adjudications, and managing foreign relations concerning copyright issues.

Earlier in May, President Trump dismissed the then-Librarian of Congress, appointing Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as the acting Librarian using the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Blanche's subsequent removal of Perlmutter has been a focal point of legal scrutiny. Critics argue that the FVRA does not apply to the position of Librarian of Congress, as it is not categorized within the defined 'executive agencies' under the act. The appellate court supported this view, suggesting that Blanche’s appointment—and therefore, Perlmutter’s dismissal—was likely unlawful.

The case not only questions the lawful extent of presidential power in appointing acting officials but also intersects with other controversial firings by the Trump administration, including that of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The outcome of this case could potentially impact the precedent set by the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. US, which currently restricts presidential power to remove certain independent officers.

As the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case, all eyes will be on whether the justices will uphold or overturn the lower court's decision, a ruling that could have profound implications for the separation of powers within the U.S. government. The decision could redefine the boundaries of executive control over non-executive branches, altering the landscape of federal administrative law.