What Happened in the Shira Perlmutter Lawsuit?

Shira Perlmutter became Register of Copyrights in October 2020 after Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden appointed her. The Register directs the U.S. Copyright Office, administers important parts of federal copyright law, and serves as Congress’s principal adviser on copyright matters.

In May 2025, the White House removed Hayden. The next day, the Copyright Office released a prepublication report on the use of copyrighted works to train generative AI systems. Perlmutter then received an email purporting to terminate her immediately. The administration relied on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to designate Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as acting Librarian of Congress, and Blanche purported to designate Paul Perkins as acting Register.

Perlmutter sued, arguing that the President could not directly remove her, that only the Librarian possessed removal authority, and that Blanche had not lawfully become acting Librarian. The administration answered that the Library and Copyright Office perform executive functions and that the President may control officials who exercise executive power.

Why the Copyright Office’s Location Matters

The U.S. Copyright Office sits inside the Library of Congress. Congress created the Library as a legislative-branch institution, and federal statutes repeatedly distinguish it from executive agencies. Under 17 U.S.C. § 701, the Librarian appoints the Register, who works under the Librarian’s general direction and supervision.

Perlmutter’s argument follows that statutory chain. Congress placed its chief copyright adviser in its own institutional orbit and did not give the President an independent power to fire the Register. Under the traditional rule that removal authority follows appointment authority, only the Librarian may remove her.

The government says labels cannot defeat function. The Copyright Office does more than advise lawmakers: it registers and rejects claims, records ownership documents, issues rules, and administers the Copyright Act. Those duties look executive because they apply federal law to private parties. In the government’s view, putting executive work in a legislative building does not transform its constitutional character. Constitutional law, inconveniently, has no organizational-chart exception.

The Core Fight Over Presidential Removal Power

The Article II Argument

Presidential removal authority is not set out in one tidy constitutional clause. It has developed from Article II’s vesting of executive power in the President and the duty to ensure faithful execution of the laws. The Supreme Court has often reasoned that a President held responsible for execution must retain meaningful control over executive officers.

That reasoning drove the Court’s June 2026 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which invalidated statutory removal protection for Federal Trade Commission commissioners. The decision strengthened the principle that officials exercising substantial executive power ordinarily must remain accountable to the President.

Perlmutter’s claim is different, however. She does not primarily argue that Congress protected her from a lawful removing authority. She argues that the President was never the proper removing authority. The case therefore asks not merely whether removal can be restricted, but who holds the removal power at all.

The Article I Counterargument

The Constitution gives Congress authority to create copyright protection in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Congress needs reliable information about creative markets, licensing, technology, litigation, and international law to exercise that power intelligently.

The Register’s statutory duties include advising Congress and conducting studies. Perlmutter’s supporters warn that direct presidential removal could shape the information lawmakers receive. An expert adviser who may be fired for inconvenient analysis may begin producing reports optimized for survival rather than accuracy.

The D.C. Circuit majority compared the alleged interference to a President attempting to fire a federal judge’s law clerk. The analogy captures the structural point: each branch requires some control over the people who help it perform its own constitutional work.

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act May Decide the Case Narrowly

The dispute over Todd Blanche offers a narrower path. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act generally provides temporary replacements for vacant, Senate-confirmed positions in executive agencies. Perlmutter argues that the Library of Congress is not an executive agency covered by the law. If so, the President could not use it to install Blanche as acting Librarian, and Blanche could not validly replace the Register.

The D.C. Circuit majority found that argument likely to succeed at the preliminary stage, noting that federal law repeatedly treats the Library as separate from executive agencies. The administration responds that the relevant offices perform executive functions and fall within presidential authority.

A statutory ruling could settle the immediate dispute without announcing a sweeping rule for every hybrid federal institution. Courts often prefer the narrow door out of a constitutional maze, especially when the broad door is breathing fire.

Why the AI Copyright Report Matters

The timing of the attempted removal gave the case an immediate political charge. The Copyright Office’s report concluded that AI training cannot be declared universally fair or unfair. Some noncommercial research uses may qualify as fair use, while copying expressive works from pirate sources to produce competing content may not. Many disputes fall between those poles and require fact-specific analysis.

Perlmutter alleges that her removal followed disagreement with advice supplied to Congress. That motive has not been finally proven, and timing alone is not proof. Still, the sequence illustrates the constitutional concern: removal power could be used to influence expert advice on a policy question worth billions of dollars.

The report also explains why leadership stability matters to outsiders. Authors, musicians, publishers, filmmakers, software companies, AI developers, and researchers all rely on predictable copyright administration. If the office’s analysis appears politically disposable, even technically careful guidance may lose credibility.

What the Courts Have Decided So Far

The federal district court initially denied Perlmutter emergency relief. Its preliminary-injunction ruling focused on irreparable harm, reasoning that temporary loss of the position could be remedied later. It did not finally decide whether the attempted removal was lawful.

In September 2025, a divided D.C. Circuit panel barred administration officials from interfering with Perlmutter’s service while the appeal continued. Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs viewed the dispute as an extraordinary alleged intrusion into the legislative branch and found Perlmutter likely to succeed. Judge Justin Walker dissented, emphasizing the Register’s executive functions.

The administration asked the Supreme Court to lift that injunction. The justices deferred action while considering Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook. On June 30, 2026, the Court denied the stay request and expressly said the denial was not a ruling on the merits. Perlmutter therefore remains in office for now while the underlying litigation continues.

What Slaughter and Cook Signal

The Supreme Court’s two June 2026 removal decisions point in different directions. Slaughter rejected protection for FTC commissioners because the modern agency exercises extensive executive power. Cook upheld a special measure of Federal Reserve independence based on historical tradition and required a meaningful opportunity to answer asserted grounds for removal.

Perlmutter fits neither model cleanly. The Copyright Office lacks the Federal Reserve’s unique monetary-policy history, but the Register is unlike an FTC commissioner because the office sits within the Library, follows a statutory appointment chain, and directly advises Congress.

The Supreme Court’s stay denial one day after those decisions is notable but not conclusive. An emergency ruling determines who remains in place during litigation; it does not necessarily announce the final constitutional rule. The Court kept the chessboard intact without declaring checkmate.

The Broader Constitutional Stakes

Congress’s Control of Its Own Expertise

A broad presidential victory could weaken Congress’s control over support institutions that perform some operational or regulatory work. The question would become whether any meaningful executive function permits White House control, even when Congress placed the office in the legislative branch.

Stable Copyright and AI Policy

The Copyright Office affects enormous creative and technology markets. Leadership uncertainty can delay guidance, complicate litigation, and leave stakeholders wondering whether official analysis reflects law, expertise, or political preference.

Effective Remedies for Structural Violations

The case also asks whether courts may keep an allegedly wrongfully removed official in office while litigation proceeds. A constitutional right without timely enforcement can become a museum piece: polished, interesting, and not very useful.

Practical Experiences and Lessons From the Perlmutter Dispute

The Congressional Staffer Seeking Neutral Advice

Picture a congressional staff member preparing an AI hearing. Technology companies argue that broad fair use is essential to innovation. Authors and publishers say unlicensed copying threatens their livelihoods. Both sides arrive with polished experts, elegant charts, and statistics that somehow favor whoever paid for lunch.

The staffer needs an institution capable of testing those claims without acting like another lobbyist. That is the practical value of an independent Copyright Office. The Perlmutter case shows that institutional design affects credibility: advice may be sophisticated yet discounted if readers believe the adviser can be replaced for displeasing the President.

The Creator and Developer Seeking Predictable Rules

A novelist whose books appear in a training dataset and a startup building an AI model may disagree about licensing, but both benefit from stable administration. The creator needs confidence that registration and enforcement policy will remain consistent. The developer needs to know whether today’s interpretation will survive next week’s personnel announcement.

Political instability can turn compliance planning into weather forecasting. Investment slows, licensing deals become harder, and legal bills grow. Independence is therefore not merely a civics ornament; it can reduce uncertainty and help markets function.

Employees Facing Competing Chains of Command

Competing claims to leadership create an operational nightmare. Staff may receive conflicting instructions, question signature authority, and wonder whether actions approved today will later be declared invalid. Projects stall because employees ask not “What is the right decision?” but “Whose decision will still count on Monday?”

For an office processing registrations, maintaining ownership records, writing regulations, and answering Congress, that confusion affects thousands of people who had no role in the constitutional fight. Clear appointment procedures protect the public as much as the officeholder.

The Future-Administration Test

Removal disputes are easiest to judge when the current President and current official dominate the discussion. A better test is to imagine the same power in the hands of a future administration with opposite priorities. Could a President replace the Register for advising Congress that a favored industry needs stronger protection, weaker protection, or more aggressive enforcement?

That thought experiment turns procedure into practical risk management. Appointment rules, acting-service limits, and judicial remedies are not favors granted to one person. They are guardrails designed for repeated use by officials from both parties. A shortcut that seems efficient today may become an alarming precedent tomorrow, usually at the exact moment its original supporters discover a renewed appreciation for institutional restraint.

Interim Orders Are Not Final Victories

The litigation also teaches readers to distinguish temporary rulings from final judgments. The district court’s refusal to grant an injunction did not prove the firing lawful. The D.C. Circuit’s injunction did not finally prove it unlawful. The Supreme Court’s stay denial did not decide the merits.

Emergency litigation is less like the final scene of a courtroom drama and more like pausing a movie to argue over the remote. The underlying story continues. The durable lesson is to separate temporary control of the office from the ultimate constitutional rule.