Perlmutter v. Blanche — Supreme Court Declines to Let Trump Remove Register of Copyrights, Preserving D.C. Circuit Order

Background

Shira Perlmutter has served as the Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office since October 2020, appointed by the Librarian of Congress. The Copyright Office sits within the Library of Congress — a legislative branch institution established in 1800 as Congress’s research arm.

On May 9, 2025, Perlmutter’s office released a prepublication version of the Copyright Office’s analysis of generative AI and copyright law. The report suggested that some unauthorized uses of copyrighted works to train AI models may not qualify as fair use — a position at odds with the stated interests of several major AI companies. According to court filings, the President disagreed with the report’s recommendations. The next morning — a Saturday — the White House Presidential Personnel Office notified Perlmutter by email that she had been “terminated from her position effective immediately.”

The termination was transmitted through Acting Librarian of Congress Todd Blanche, whom Trump had designated to replace Carla Hayden after removing her as Librarian days earlier. Perlmutter sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a preliminary injunction to continue serving while the case was litigated. The district court denied the injunction, ruling only that Perlmutter had failed to show irreparable harm. She appealed.

The Court’s Holding

On September 10, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal, 2-1, barring the executive branch from interfering with Perlmutter’s service as Register of Copyrights pending further court order. Circuit Judge Walker dissented. Circuit Judges Pan and Childs concurred with detailed reasoning that has defined the case.

Judge Pan, joined by Judge Childs, wrote that the Register of Copyrights is “a unique position within the Legislative Branch, housed within the Library of Congress.” Under 17 U.S.C. § 701(a), the Librarian of Congress alone appoints, supervises, and may remove the Register. The court found the attempted removal “an unprecedented violation of the separation of powers” — analogous to “the president trying to fire a federal judge’s law clerk.” The Register, the court reasoned, does not exercise “substantial executive power” and serves Congress, not the President, in fulfilling the constitutional copyright clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 8). The court also found “unusual” circumstances warranting an injunction: a president removing a legislative officer because she provided Congress with advice on copyright policy the administration disagreed with.

On June 30, 2026 — the final day of the Supreme Court’s October Term 2025 — the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s emergency application (No. 25A478) to lift the D.C. Circuit’s injunction. The Court stated plainly that the “denial of the application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation.” The denial came one day after the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook (June 29, 2026) that the President could remove FTC commissioners and Federal Reserve governors under its expanded reading of presidential removal authority — making SCOTUS’s decision to leave the Copyright Office injunction in place particularly significant.

Key Takeaways

• The Register of Copyrights is a legislative branch officer whom the President cannot remove; only the Librarian of Congress holds that authority under 17 U.S.C. § 701(a).
• The D.C. Circuit distinguished the Register from executive officers (like FTC commissioners), finding she does not exercise substantial executive power and serves Congress’s constitutional copyright mandate.
• The Supreme Court drew an implicit distinction between executive officials (FTC, Federal Reserve — subject to removal) and the Copyright Office (legislative branch — injunction maintained), even as it expanded removal power in other contexts this week.
• The underlying merits — whether the removal was permanently unlawful — remain before the D.C. Circuit; this litigation is far from resolved.

Why It Matters

This case carries enormous stakes for copyright and technology law. The Copyright Office is the central federal body that registers copyrights, advises Congress on IP legislation, and analyzes how new technologies interact with existing law — including AI. Perlmutter was fired the day after her office published an analysis suggesting AI training on copyrighted content may not always be fair use. Her reinstatement means the Copyright Office will continue that work from an independent institutional posture, outside the Executive Branch’s direct control.

If the D.C. Circuit ultimately holds on the full merits that the Register cannot be fired by any president for policy disagreements, it will entrench the Copyright Office’s institutional independence with lasting implications for who shapes U.S. copyright policy at the intersection of AI, technology, and intellectual property law. Companies, developers, and rights holders navigating the AI copyright landscape should watch this litigation closely — the outcome will affect how the government’s primary copyright administrator interprets the law for years to come.