Ousted Copyright Chief Wins Preliminary Injunction to Resume Work from D.C. Appellate Panel
On September 10, 2025, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction allowing Shira Perlmutter, the ousted Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, to temporarily resume her duties while her lawsuit against the Trump administration proceeds. This decision overturns a lower court’s denial and reinstates Perlmutter amid a broader legal battle over presidential authority to remove officials from the legislative branch.
Key Details of the Ruling
- Court and Decision: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued the temporary order in a 2-1 decision, blocking the Trump administration from enforcing Perlmutter’s May 2025 firing. The majority found she met the criteria for irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on her claims that her removal violated separation of powers principles. This allows her to return to work at the Library of Congress, where the Copyright Office is housed, pending a full appeal.
- Dissent: Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker dissented, arguing the Copyright Office’s regulatory functions align with executive branch authority under D.C. Circuit precedent, and thus the president has removal power. He viewed the injunction as an overreach into executive prerogatives.
- Immediate Impact: Perlmutter, who has led the office since 2016, can now resume oversight of copyright registrations, policy, and litigation support for Congress and courts. Her return halts Acting Librarian of Congress Caleb Blanche’s interim control, which was installed post-firing.
Background on the Firing and Lawsuit
Perlmutter’s ouster stems from a clash over the independence of the Library of Congress, a legislative branch entity. Key timeline:
- May 9, 2025: The Copyright Office releases a report concluding that using copyrighted works to train AI models may not qualify as fair use, drawing criticism from tech industry allies of the Trump administration.
- May 11, 2025: The White House fires the Librarian of Congress and, two days later, terminates Perlmutter, appointing Deputy Assistant Attorney General Caleb Blanche as acting Librarian under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Perlmutter, appointed by the Librarian (with presidential nomination and Senate confirmation), argues this bypasses statutory protections insulating her role from direct presidential removal.
- May 22-23, 2025: Perlmutter sues Trump, the Justice Department, and Blanche in U.S. District Court for D.C., seeking declaratory judgment that her position is legislative-branch protected and an injunction barring her removal and Blanche’s authority. She claims the moves constitute an unconstitutional power grab, potentially setting precedent for executive overreach into independent agencies.
- May 28, 2025: District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denies Perlmutter’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, ruling she failed to prove “irreparable harm.” The case continues toward a full merits hearing.
The lawsuit, represented by Democracy Forward and Munger, Tolles & Olson, alleges violations of the Appointments Clause and separation of powers, emphasizing the Copyright Office’s quasi-judicial and legislative support roles.
Broader Implications
- Legal Stakes: This case tests the boundaries of executive removal power over “inferior officers” in legislative-branch entities. Perlmutter’s team warns it could erode congressional independence, while the administration defends it as necessary for accountability in regulatory functions like AI policy. A full D.C. Circuit ruling could head to the Supreme Court, echoing cases like Seila Law v. CFPB on agency structure.
- Policy Context: The firing followed tensions over the AI report, which impacts tech giants’ use of copyrighted data. Perlmutter’s reinstatement may delay or alter ongoing Copyright Office initiatives on digital rights, AI, and international treaties.
- Reactions: Supporters hail the appellate win as a check on executive overreach; critics, including some Republicans, see it as judicial interference in administration reforms. Tech advocates express concern over potential policy shifts, while creators’ groups welcome Perlmutter’s expertise back in place.
This preliminary victory provides Perlmutter short-term relief but leaves the underlying constitutional questions unresolved. The case is set for expedited briefing, with oral arguments likely in late 2025.