Supreme Court Pauses Removal of Copyright Chief, Leaves Legal Fight to Later

The Supreme Court on Tuesday kept in place judicial decisions that have prevented the Trump administration from removing Shira Perlmutter as Register of Copyrights, effectively pausing an explosive personnel fight while broader questions about presidential removal power are adjudicated. The order leaves Perlmutter in her post for the time being and postpones a final ruling until the court addresses related cases over the removal of federal officials.

The administration moved to oust Perlmutter after a Copyright Office report concluded that certain uses of copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence systems could be unlawful. Perlmutter’s legal team contends the attempted dismissal was retaliatory, and that the acting Librarian of Congress who purportedly appointed a successor was not validly installed. Lower courts agreed with those arguments, issuing injunctions that blocked the government from removing her. The Supreme Court’s brief order maintains those injunctions while it resolves parallel disputes over removal authority, including cases involving a member of the Federal Trade Commission and a governor of the Federal Reserve.

The split on the court was visible. Justice Clarence Thomas registered his dissent, signaling he would have allowed the administration to proceed with the firing while litigation continued. The majority did not provide an opinion in the emergency order, instead waiting to hear the consolidated constitutional questions that are now shaping the litigation strategy in Perlmutter’s case.

Beyond the immediate personnel dispute, the litigation touches on significant policy and market issues. The Copyright Office report that triggered the confrontation has become a flash point for a broader regulatory tug of war between creators and technology companies over the legal status of training data in generative AI systems. For creators and rights holders, a favorable legal posture from the Copyright Office can strengthen negotiating leverage over licensing and enforcement, protecting revenue streams that amount to billions of dollars across music, film, publishing and software sectors. For AI developers and investors, unresolved rules increase legal risk and compliance costs, potentially slowing deployments or shifting investment toward jurisdictions with clearer frameworks.

Legal scholars say the court’s eventual ruling could set precedent on the reach of presidential authority over independent or quasi independent agencies. If the court narrows protections for officials like the Register of Copyrights, agency decision making on intellectual property, consumer protection, and monetary policy could become more vulnerable to political turnover. That in turn could alter the stability of regulatory expectations for markets that rely on predictable enforcement, from advertising and online platforms to financial market infrastructures.

In the near term, the status quo preserves the Copyright Office’s current leadership and its capacity to engage in rule making and advisory work on AI and copyright. But the delay also extends uncertainty for stakeholders awaiting clearer guidance on the legal boundaries of AI training practices. With the Supreme Court stacking these cases for a single resolution, businesses and policymakers may have to wait months before a definitive answer to the removal power questions that now intersect with the future of AI regulation and the economics of creative industries.