Former National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over her abrupt removal from the agency last week.

“The President’s removal of Ms. Wilcox without even purporting to identify any neglect of duty or malfeasance, and without notice or a hearing, defies ninety years of Supreme Court precedent that has ensured the independence of critical government agencies like the Federal Reserve,” states the complaint, which was filed in D.C. district court.

“The President’s action against Ms. Wilcox is part of a string of openly illegal firings in the early days of the second Trump administration that are apparently designed to test Congress’s power to create independent agencies like the Board,” the complaint continues.

The outcome of the case will likely have ramifications for other independent agencies in the executive branch and determine whether they can be insulated from the president’s reach. In firing Wilcox, the Trump administration flouted a federal statute that said NLRB board members can only be removed “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.”

In its Jan. 27 letter to Wilcox and general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a fellow Democratic appointee who was simultaneously removed, the White House stated that part of the National Labor Relations Act “does not operate as a restriction on [the president’s] ability to remove Board members.”

Though Abruzzo’s firing was widely expected, Wilcox’s unprecedented removal has left the NLRB without the quorum necessary to rule on cases, grinding much of the agency’s most consequential work to a standstill.

Wilcox is asking the court to declare that she remains a “rightful member of the Board and that the President lacks authority to remove her” outside of the process outlined by the NLRA.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. A Trump administration official previously told Blue Light News Wicox and Abruzzo were “far-left appointees with radical records of upending longstanding labor law, and they have no place as senior appointees in the Trump Administration, which was given a mandate by the American people to undo the radical policies they created.”

The administration has similarly dismantled the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which enforces workplace antidiscrimination laws — by removing two Democratic commissioners and its Biden-appointed top lawyer.

The ousted EEOC commissioners have also threatened to challenge their own removals, while the general counsel — Karla Gilbride — joined a government watchdog group that is suing the Trump administration over other matters.

The White House’s position that it holds near-unlimited authority to shape the executive branch to the president’s liking could tee up the Supreme Court to revisit a precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor that, for nearly a century, has served as the foundation for the constitutionality of independent agencies.

Rep. Al Green said Wednesday he was introducing impeachment articles against Donald Trump after the president said the U.S. would “take over” Gaza.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. and injustice in Gaza is a threat to justice in the United States of America,” Green said in a floor speech Wednesday morning. “I rise to announce that the movement to impeach the president has begun. I rise to announce that I will bring articles of impeachment against the president for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done.”

The Texas Democrat launched multiple longshot impeachment bids during Trump’s first term using procedural maneuvers meant to circumvent House leadership and bypass committees. Similar to his last efforts, there’s not much appetite among Democrats to impeach Trump as of yet.

Asked Wednesday about Green’s measure, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), the No. 3 House Democrat, said it wasn’t a focus for the caucus.

Florida Rep. Byron Donalds challenged Speaker Mike Johnson inside a closed-door House Republican conference meeting Wednesday morning to produce a workable plan to advance President Donald Trump’s policy agenda, according to three people in the room granted anonymity to describe the exchange.

Donalds is a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus that has proposed an alternative to Johnson’s one-big-bill strategy, and he spoke as Republicans across the House GOP’s ideological divides are growing anxious with the delays.

He argued to Johnson that the Freedom Caucus comes in for lots of criticism, according to the people present, but they at least have a workable plan — one that involves dividing the agenda into two bills. Johnson huddled privately for hours last night with members of the House Budget Committee, including some Freedom Caucus members, but did not emerge with a viable blueprint; he’s previously argued a two-bill approach would fail in the House.

Johnson said in a brief interview after the meeting that he assured Donalds “that we’re moving forward toward the final decision.” Separately, House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said talks were “in a good spot” and that a committee meeting could be called by the end of the week to debate and advance a budget blueprint.

The budget plan wasn’t the only point of contention: Donalds, who is considering a run for governor, also got in a heated back-and-forth with the speaker over a brewing government funding deal with Democrats ahead of a March 14 shutdown deadline.

Donalds argued Republicans shouldn’t strike a deal with Democrats to fund the government and, likely, raise the debt ceiling. Johnson responded that they would need seven Democrats in the Senate to back any government funding plan due to the chamber’s filibuster rule.

“None of us” want to work with Democrats on government funding, Johnson said in the interview afterward. “The reality is you have to get 60 votes in the Senate, so that’s what dictates how all this goes.”

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.