WASHINGTON–As the CU Daily has been reporting, the fate of the NCUA board remains very much tied up in litigation, but one Washington analyst is now predicting a case involving the firing of two of its members will not only end up before the Supreme Court—as expected—but that the justices will rule in favor of the federal government and allow the president to terminate board members.
To date, most analysts have been taking a wait-and-see approach to how the case filed by former NCUA board members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka will play out, and have not been offering forecasts beyond a belief the high court will ultimately be involved.
As the CU Daily reported here, on July 25, the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia ruled that the district court’s summary judgement order, dated July 22, 2025, be “administratively stayed pending further order of this court.”
The ruling means that the NCUA board is, for now, back to one member, Chairman Kyle Hauptman, the Republican appointee (whose term officially expires Aug. 2).
Call for ‘Independent’ Agency
Carrie Hunt, chief advocacy officer with America’s Credit Unions, who repeated during a call with the media the trade group’s support for a “strong and independent” NCUA, said she is hopeful “we can get to a point where some of these legal issues get resolved. That being said, we do expect (all cases involving the firing by the president of board members commissioners, etc. at federal agencies) to go up to the Supreme Court.”
The question before the high court will be whether to overturn the longstanding precedent of Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 ruling that established that Congress can create independent agencies with protections against presidential removal of their leaders, except for “cause.”
Statutory Specific
“The legal analysis for these types of cases really are statutory specific,” said Hunt. “The (NCUA case) does have some unique things that some of these other cases the Supreme Court is considering do not have. It really comes down to whether or not the statute is silent on things like being able to be removed for cause.
“I do think that certainly, how independent agencies are treated going forward (is) one of the biggest issues that we will absolutely face in in the near term,” said Hunt.
Hunt said one intriguing aspect of the current litigation filed by those who have been fired by the president is the date when a statute was created. The FCU Act, for example, was signed by President Roosevelt in June of 1934. The Supreme Court issued its decision in Humphrey’s Executor in 1935.
In addition, Hunt said there is also considerable discussion around what constitutes “cause” in removing a board member or commissioner.
A Prediction
“I do think that ultimately the Supreme Court is going to decide that the president does have the ability and authority to remove those appointees, because he’s nominating them and, ultimately, Congress is confirming them,” Hunt said in response to a question from the CU Daily. “I do think we will end up a place that departs from Humphrey’s Executor…There’s a lot of stake here.”
Complicating the issue, said Hunt, is that the president may go in one direction, but the Congress could attempt to legislate in another to better insulate federal agencies.
