What is Happening with the Register of Copyrights?

In the news recently were several reports about the Supreme Court deferring a decision on whether President Trump can fire Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights. We have previously blogged about the origins of this lawsuit and why the lawsuit matters for authors, but the rapid developments over the past few months warrant an update. We explain below where the case now stands—and how it connects to two major Supreme Court cases that may shape the future of the US Copyright Office.

Perlmutter v Blanche

First, this is a summary of where things stand for Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter

1. After the purported firing of Shira Perlmutter, she filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaration that she was still the Register, i.e., that she had not been removed legally from her position. She then filed a motion for preliminary injunction allowing her to remain in her position pending her litigation that her termination was unlawful. The District Court denied this motion. (Perlmutter v. Blanche, D.C. Dist.  No. 25-cv-1659)
2. Perlmutter appealed the denial of her motion for preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit granted Perlmutter an injunction pending her appeal, thus permitting her to remain Register. (Perlmutter v. Blanche, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5285)
3. The Trump administration requested the D.C. Circuit to rehear the grant of that injunction, which the court denied. It then requested the Supreme Court to stay that injunction. The Supreme Court did not do so; instead the Court deferred decision—pending resolution of two other cases concerning the President’s removal of government officials, Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit holds the case in abeyance.
4. Perlmutter remains Register as the case stands now. Once the Supreme Court decides Cook and Slaughter, Perlmutter will decide whether to continue or abandon the litigation. If she decides to continue the litigation, the appeal currently held in abeyance in the D.C. Circuit will resume, and her opening brief on appeal will be due, regarding the validity of the preliminary injunction. And if she continues the litigation, at some point there will be a decision in the District Court on the merits of her lawsuit.

(Thank you to Jonathan Band for an earlier version of this summary of Perlmutter v. Blanche).

What are Cook and Slaughter all about?

The fate of the Register of Copyrights now depends, apparently, on two major Supreme Court cases that address questions about presidential power and the structure of the federal government.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Battle Over Independent Agencies

Trump v. Slaughter centers on President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. In March 2025, Trump removed Slaughter and another Democratic FTC commissioner, asserting that their continued service was “inconsistent” with his administration’s policies. The FTC Act, however, provides that commissioners can only be removed “for cause” — specifically for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter sued to challenge her removal, and a federal district court ruled in her favor, reinstating her to her position. The Trump administration appealed, and in September, the Supreme Court granted a stay allowing her removal to take effect while the case proceeds. The Court scheduled oral arguments for December 8, 2025.

At the heart of this case is a direct challenge to Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a unanimous 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld Congress’s authority to protect the heads of independent agencies from certain presidential dismissals. The Trump administration is asking the Court to overturn this 90-year-old precedent and establish instead that the President has unrestricted power to fire officials in independent agencies traditionally insulated from presidential control.

During oral arguments on December 8, the Court’s conservative majority signaled strong support for the Trump administration’s position. Chief Justice John Roberts referred to Humphrey’s Executor as “a dried husk” of its former self. The Court appeared poised to either overturn the precedent entirely or to significantly weaken it. 

If the Court rules in Trump’s favor, it would give the President additional control over dozens of independent agencies that Congress created to operate with some distance from direct presidential influence. This would impact agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the National Labor Relations Board.

Trump v. Cook: The Federal Reserve Question

Trump v. Cook involves the President’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve Governor. Trump cited allegations that Cook committed mortgage fraud before joining the Fed by designating two different properties as her “primary residence” when taking out loans. Cook denies the allegations and argues that the President lacks authority to remove her.

Federal Reserve Governors can serve 14-year terms and can only be removed “for cause,” though the Federal Reserve Act does not define what constitutes sufficient cause. This case raises the question of whether the mortgage fraud allegations, which relate to conduct before Cook took office, satisfy the “for cause” standard.

The Cook case is significant because the Supreme Court has previously suggested the Federal Reserve might deserve special treatment. In a May 2025 decision in Trump v. Wilcox,  allowing Trump to fire officials from other agencies, the Court noted that the Fed is “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” This language suggested the Court might carve out special protection for the Fed even if it undermines independence for other agencies.

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the Cook case for January 21, 2026. Cook remains in her position until the Court decides the case.

Why These Cases Matter for the Register of Copyrights

The Perlmutter case presents similar questions about presidential removal power, but with its own complications stemming from the Copyright Office’s unusual institutional position. Unlike the FTC or the Federal Reserve, which are clearly Executive branch agencies, the Copyright Office sits within the Library of Congress, a Legislative Branch agency.

The Register of Copyrights is appointed or removed by the Librarian of Congress, not the President. The statutory framework governing the Register’s appointment and removal runs through the Librarian, not directly through presidential authority. This creates separation of powers questions about whether the President can reach into a Legislative Branch agency to fire an official.

The resolution of the Cook case may be especially relevant to Perlmutter’s situation. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Federal Reserve’s “uniquely structured, quasi-private” status and its “distinct historical tradition” might warrant special treatment even if the Court eliminates protections for other independent agencies. The Copyright Office presents a different but analogous argument: it is uniquely situated within a Legislative Branch agency, reflecting a longstanding Congressional judgment that copyright administration involves quasi-legislative functions related to balancing creator, user, and public interests.

If the Court is willing to recognize institutional uniqueness as a factor in the Cook case, that reasoning might extend to other unusually structured offices like the Register of Copyrights. The analogy is not exact—the Fed is quasi-private while the Copyright Office is within the Legislative Branch—but both involve specialized institutional structures that Congress created for particular policy reasons.

Up until now, it seemed to us that Perlmutter’s case was quite different than Slaughter or Cook, but the Supreme Court’s decision to tie those cases to a decision on Perlmutter suggests that the Justices think otherwise. As a result, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Slaughter and Cook will likely provide guidance on several questions relevant to Perlmutter’s case:

1. The scope of presidential removal power: If the Court holds that the President has broad authority to fire officials in independent agencies, it may embolden arguments that the President can also reach into Legislative Branch agencies.
   
2. The relevance of institutional uniqueness: If the Court carves out special treatment for the Federal Reserve based on its unique structure partially outside the Executive Branch, that could support arguments for protecting other uniquely structured offices with only partial Executive Branch functions.
   

The Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act

As the legal battles play out in court, Congress is considering a legislative response that could reshape the entire controversy. In November 2025, Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA) introduced the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act, a bill that would fundamentally restructure the relationship between the Copyright Office, the Library of Congress, and the President.

What the Bill Would Do

The bill takes a blunt approach to resolving the separation of powers questions at the heart of the Perlmutter litigation. As law professor Blake Reid explains in his excellent analysis of the bill, it would make two major changes:

First, it would strengthen the Library of Congress’s status as a Legislative Branch agency. The bill would remove the President from the process of appointing and removing the Librarian of Congress. Instead, the Librarian would be selected by House and Senate leadership (the Speaker, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader) from three candidates recommended by the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Administration Committees. Congressional leadership would also have explicit authority to remove the Librarian by majority vote.

This change would effectively prevent any replay of President Trump’s firing and attempted replacement of Dr. Carla Hayden as Librarian of Congress earlier in 2025.

Second, and more significantly for copyright policy, the bill would sever the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress and place it directly under presidential control. The Register of Copyrights would be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation to a ten-year term, with unlimited five-year renewals possible. The Librarian would lose oversight authority over the Copyright Office, including responsibilities like supervising the DMCA Section 1201 triennial review of anti-circumvention rules.

Implications of Moving the Copyright Office

The proposed restructuring raises questions about the Copyright Office’s institutional identity and mission. For over a century, the Copyright Office has operated within the Library of Congress, a placement that reflected Congress’s view that copyright policy involves quasi-legislative functions and at least in theory, would balance the interests of creators, users, and the public (though the balance has not always worked out in practice).

If the bill passes, the Copyright Office would become a standalone Executive Branch agency led by a Presidentially-appointed Register. This would give the President clearer authority to fire the Register, likely mooting the separation of powers issues in the Perlmutter litigation. But it would also cause some complications. As Reid points out, some of them are very practical: the physical location of the Copyright Office (currently housed in the Library of Congress buildings near the Capitol) would be potentially up for debate. And it would also leave unresolved questions about whether the Copyright Office would be subject to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), which allows the President to make temporary acting appointments without Senate confirmation. 

Perhaps most concerning for the future of the Library of Congress, it would move authority around deposit copies (copies of copyrighted works collected by the Copyright Office and transferred to the collections of the Library of Congress) and leave open the possibility of the deposit program being diminished should a newly independent Copyright Office decide to make changes to it. Already recently under attack in Valancourt Books v. Garland, the deposit program is a critical means by which the Library acquires and preserves published works. A recent Copyright Office report indicates that this amounts to over half a million works transferred to the Library each year.

Recap

As of December 2025:

• Shira Perlmutter remains Register of Copyrights, protected by the D.C. Circuit’s preliminary injunction, while her case is held in abeyance.
  
• The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter on December 8, 2025, with the conservative majority signaling it may overturn or significantly weaken the 90-year-old Humphrey’s Executor precedent that protects independent agency officials.
  
• The Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Cook on January 21, 2026, which will address whether the President can fire Federal Reserve officials and could establish special protections for the Fed.
  
• Congress is considering the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act, which would restructure the Copyright Office as an executive branch agency under presidential control.
  

Once the Supreme Court decides Slaughter and Cook, the legal landscape for Perlmutter’s case will become clearer. We will continue to report on Perlmutter as it unfolds and on what the outcome of the case may mean for authors and the future of the US Copyright Office.