D.C. Circuit, Abramowitz v. Lake: Voice of America director's removal protection and Article II

What happened

On November 10, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction that bars the U.S. Agency for Global Media from removing Michael Abramowitz as head of Voice of America without the approval of a majority of the International Broadcasting Advisory Board. The case is Abramowitz v. Lake, No. 25-5314. Judge Pillard wrote the opinion for a unanimous panel that also included Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judge Pan. No judge wrote separately.

The court summarised its holdings in three sentences: "The district court had jurisdiction to enforce the statutory requirements governing the Voice of America directorship. Those statutory requirements are consistent with Article II. And the district court had equitable power to enjoin defendants from effectuating the illegal termination."

Background

A 2021 statute, 22 U.S.C. § 6205(e), provides that heads of the Agency's networks "may only be appointed or removed if such action has been approved by a majority vote" of the Broadcasting Board. Five of the Board's seven members may also remove a network head on their own after consulting the Agency's chief executive. Abramowitz was appointed in April 2024 with the Board's unanimous approval. According to the opinion, six of the seven Board members were fired in 2025. Agency officials then told Abramowitz in July 2025 that he would be reassigned, and they informed him by letter dated August 1, 2025 that he had been removed. Six of the seven Board seats remain empty. The district court granted partial summary judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act and entered the injunction on August 28, 2025.

What the opinion says

Jurisdiction. The government argued that the Civil Service Reform Act channels the claim to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court disagreed. It held that "Section 6205(e) is best read to effect an implicit exemption from CSRA's implied preclusion," and that each of the Thunder Basin factors supported district-court review.

Article II. The court said that the defendants "concede that they removed Abramowitz in violation of section 6205(e)" and offer one defense, that the removal procedures "violate Article II." The court held that Abramowitz is "undisputedly an inferior officer" and that the Board was not disputed to be a department head. Under the Appointments Clause, Congress may vest such appointments, and by implication removals, in "the Heads of Departments." On the argument that the officer must be controlled by the head of the department that employs him, the court said Morrison v. Olson (1988) "forecloses that argument."

On the President's removal power, the court cited Trump v. Slaughter (2026), which held that "the President may remove his subordinates at will" from principal officer positions. It said it "need not consider here whether the same rule applies to inferior officers." It reasoned instead that the parties do not dispute that the President may remove Board members at will. Under Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010), that means "Abramowitz is effectively subject to the same." The court acknowledged that the President "might face delay" in replacing a majority of the Board. It said that delay "is attributable to the Appointments Clause itself."

Remedy. Relying on its own precedent and on Trump v. Cook (2026), the court held that courts may enforce statutory removal restrictions through injunctions against subordinate officials.

The other side

The panel was unanimous and no judge dissented. As the opinion records them, the government argued four things:

• The Civil Service Reform Act gave the Merit Systems Protection Board, not the district court, jurisdiction over the claim.
• "[m]aking removal a joint concern" of the Board and the Agency chief executive violates Article II.
• Control of an inferior officer must rest with the head of "the department that actually employs" him.
• Section 6205 creates an unconstitutional "exception[] to the President's unrestricted removal power." Because removal power is "diffused" across a multimember body, Abramowitz is effectively shielded from removal.

The government also argued that the district court lacked authority to enjoin the removal.

Where it sits in the record

The case followed earlier stay proceedings in this court, including en banc orders in Widakuswara v. Lake in May 2025. It draws on the Supreme Court's 2026 decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook. The court did not decide whether the at-will removal rule stated in Slaughter for principal officers also applies to inferior officers.