Federal Judge Again Rejects Ousted Copyright Chief’s Request to Regain Position
August 26, 2025 – In a significant setback for Shira Perlmutter, the former Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly has once again denied her bid for reinstatement, ruling that she failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from her May 2025 dismissal by the Trump administration. This marks the second judicial rejection in her ongoing lawsuit challenging the legality of her ouster, escalating a high-stakes battle over executive authority, separation of powers, and the independence of the legislative branch’s institutions. The decision, handed down during a July 23 hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, underscores the Trump administration’s aggressive push to reshape federal agencies, including those traditionally insulated from political interference. Below is a detailed examination of the case, its timeline, key arguments, reactions, and broader implications, based on court filings, expert analyses, and media reports.
Background: Perlmutter’s Firing and the Spark of Controversy
Shira Perlmutter, a veteran intellectual property lawyer appointed by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden in 2020, led the U.S. Copyright Office—a division of the Library of Congress responsible for registering copyrights, advising Congress on policy, and administering royalty systems. Her tenure was marked by efforts to modernize copyright law amid technological shifts, including a landmark report on artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright released just days before her dismissal.
The controversy erupted in early May 2025, shortly after President Donald Trump’s second inauguration. On May 9, Trump fired Hayden, the first woman and African American to serve as Librarian of Congress, via email, citing her promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the placement of “inappropriate books” in the library. Hayden’s 10-year term was set to expire in 2026, making the dismissal unusual for a position historically insulated from partisan changes—the last such replacement occurred in 1861.
Two days later, on May 10, Perlmutter was terminated by email as well, with the White House appointing Todd Blanche—Trump’s former defense attorney and a Justice Department official—as acting Librarian of Congress, and Paul Perkins as acting Register of Copyrights. The timing raised eyebrows: Perlmutter’s office had just published Part 3 of its AI report on May 9, which scrutinized the use of copyrighted materials to train generative AI models, concluding that such practices often exceeded fair use limits and implicated owners’ exclusive rights. The report stopped short of recommending immediate intervention but highlighted potential infringement in commercial AI applications, a stance that clashed with tech industry interests and the administration’s pro-innovation agenda, including the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, which seeks AI-driven federal reforms.
Perlmutter called her firing “blatantly unlawful” in a lawsuit filed on May 22, 2025, arguing that the Copyright Office operates under the legislative branch, where only the Librarian of Congress—not the president—has authority to appoint or remove the Register under 17 U.S.C. Chapter 7. The suit named Trump, Blanche, Perkins, and White House Presidential Personnel Office Director Sergio Gor as defendants, seeking her reinstatement and a declaration that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act does not apply to legislative branch positions.
The Lawsuit’s Timeline: From TRO to Preliminary Injunction Denial
Perlmutter’s legal team, represented by Democracy Forward and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, moved quickly for emergency relief:
- May 22, 2025: Lawsuit filed in D.D.C. (Case No. 1:25-cv-01659), seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block her removal, void Blanche’s appointment, and halt Perkins’ actions.
- May 28, 2025: Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, denied the TRO from the bench, ruling that Perlmutter failed to show irreparable harm. He cited recent Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit precedents skeptical of such claims, noting her job loss alone wasn’t sufficient and any institutional harm was too vaguely defined. Kelly allowed briefing on a preliminary injunction by May 29.
- May 29, 2025: Perlmutter’s attorneys proposed an expedited summary judgment schedule (motions by June 5, opposition by June 12, reply by June 16) or, alternatively, a preliminary injunction.
- July 4, 2025: Perlmutter filed for a preliminary injunction, reiterating irreparable harm to her statutory role and the office’s independence, especially amid the AI report’s fallout.
- July 23, 2025: During a hearing, Kelly again expressed skepticism, pushing back harder on Perlmutter’s arguments than the government’s defense. He questioned the personal harm threshold, stating the record lacked factual support for dramatic, undefined changes to her role. No ruling was issued from the bench, but Kelly appeared unlikely to grant the injunction, signaling another rejection.
The case remains ongoing, with potential for summary judgment or appeals. As of August 26, no further rulings have been reported, but legal trackers like Just Security continue to monitor it amid broader challenges to Trump’s firings.
Key Arguments: Separation of Powers at the Core
Perlmutter’s Claims
- Unlawful Removal: The lawsuit asserts that Congress intentionally placed the Copyright Office in the legislative branch to shield it from executive influence. Only the Librarian can remove the Register, and Trump’s firing via email—after ousting Hayden—violates this structure.
- Irreparable Harm: Perlmutter argued her ouster deprives her of a statutory right to serve, damages the office’s independence, and disrupts ongoing work like AI policy. She claimed the administration’s actions threaten congressional intent for an apolitical Copyright Office.
- Broader Impact: The suit highlights the AI report’s timing, suggesting retaliation against positions challenging tech giants’ interests, potentially harming creators’ rights in music, publishing, and beyond.
Administration’s Defense
- Executive Authority: The Justice Department argued the Library of Congress is not fully autonomous and falls under executive oversight. With no Librarian, the president can remove “inferior officers” like the Register under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which allows acting appointments for roles with executive functions (e.g., setting music royalties).
- No Irreparable Harm: Officials contended job loss alone doesn’t qualify, and institutional disruptions are speculative. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly emphasized the president’s right to remove executive-branch employees.
- Precedents: Citing Supreme Court rulings upholding Trump’s firings of independent agency board members, the administration portrayed the case as part of a pattern affirming broad removal powers.
Reactions: Backlash from Democrats, Support from Conservatives
The firings drew immediate partisan divides:
- Democratic Outrage: Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY), top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, condemned Perlmutter’s ouster as an attack on congressional independence, noting it followed Hayden’s firing and came amid the AI report. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) demanded reinstatement, calling it “unlawful” and harmful to creators. The American Federation of Musicians warned of damage to the “entire copyright community,” emphasizing human creativity’s role in law.
- Republican and Administration Support: Some GOP lawmakers questioned Trump’s authority over legislative roles, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the moves as necessary to align with executive priorities. Conservative outlets like Deadline framed the denial as a win against “deep state” resistance.
- Industry and Expert Views: Publishers Weekly highlighted risks to copyright policy stability, while legal experts like those at Bloomberg Law noted the case’s novelty as the first challenge to a legislative-branch firing. NPR and The Register linked it to AI tensions, suggesting retaliation against fair use critiques.
On X, reactions were polarized: Progressive users decried it as “authoritarian overreach” (#SaveCopyrightOffice), while Trump supporters hailed it as “draining the swamp” (#TrumpFiresBack).
Broader Implications: Testing Executive Limits in the Trump Era
This case is part of over 100 lawsuits challenging Trump’s actions, per Just Security’s tracker, including firings of inspectors general and agency heads. It tests the boundaries of removal powers post-Supreme Court rulings like those in May 2025 upholding Trump’s independent agency firings. For the Copyright Office, the instability could delay AI policy, royalty decisions, and registrations, affecting industries worth billions.
If appealed, the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court could clarify legislative-branch independence. As Roll Call noted, it’s a “power struggle” between branches, with Trump’s 192 executive orders in 2025 amplifying tensions. Perlmutter’s fight may not regain her post but could set precedents safeguarding institutions from executive whims.
For updates, follow court dockets or trackers like Just Security. This ruling reinforces Trump’s early-term momentum but highlights vulnerabilities in overreaching firings.