Alvin Brown and Robert Primus argue that the presidential power to remove officials does not allow constitutional guarantees against racial discrimination to be ignored.

Two former African-American officials from federal transportation agencies once again took their dismissals to a Washington court, this time with an argument that could open another front in the dispute over the extent of Donald Trump's presidential power.

Alvin Brown, former vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and Robert E. Primus, former member of the Surface Transportation Board (STB), filed separate briefs defending their claims against the Trump-Vance administration.

The organization Democracy Forward, which represents both along with Justice Legal Strategies, reported that the officials maintain that their dismissals were motivated, at least in part, by race and violated the guarantees of equality contemplated in the Fifth Amendment.

The argument goes beyond Trump's power to fire

The case comes after the Supreme Court ruled Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 decision that eliminated tenure protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission and expanded the president's latitude to remove officials from certain independent agencies.

Brown and Primus seek to make a difference: Even if the president has broad powers to remove officials, they maintain that the Constitution does not authorize a firing based on race.

“When you look at who has been removed without cause and who has remained in their positions, the pattern is impossible to ignore,” Brown said last December, announcing the expansion of his demands.

Both also argue that there was different treatment compared to white officials who were in comparable circumstances.

Brown also questions the independence of the NTSB

In Brown's case, his lawyers argue that the legal protections that limited his removal should be maintained because the NTSB has a primarily investigative and security role, not regulation or law enforcement.

Brown was removed in May 2025 and Primus in August of that same year. Primus, whose mandate was scheduled until December 2027, maintains that he did not receive a legal reason to justify his departure.

The Trump administration, for its part, has defended its authority to remove officials and has indicated in other cases that it seeks to have members who are aligned with presidential priorities. In the case of Primus, the White House argued that it was not aligned with the “America First” agenda.

Now it will be the courts that will have to determine the extent of the new scope of presidential power and, above all, whether that power can be used in a way that violates constitutional guarantees against racial discrimination.

This news has been tken from authentic news syndicates and agencies and only the wordings has been changed keeping the menaing intact. We have not done personal research yet and do not guarantee the complete genuinity and request you to verify from other sources too.