German arms-maker Rheinmetall had a bad Saturday night.
Top football club Borussia Dortmund — newly sponsored by the giant weapons merchant in a controversial deal unveiled this week — lost the Champions League football final against Real Madrid by two goals to zero.
The sponsorship triggered discussion about the weapons industry moving to the mainstream in a country still shaped by the legacy of World War II, where military matters can still be taboo.
Green Economy Minister and German Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck acknowledged that the deal was “unusual” but reflected the reality of a “different, more threatening world” where companies like Rheinmetall have gained prominence as arms suppliers to Ukraine, where Kyiv uses Western munitions to fend off Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion.
Despite dominating parts of the final on Saturday night and creating clear chances, Dortmund eventually succumbed in the latter stages to the favored Real Madrid, which won its record-extending 15th title. Dani Carvajal scored the opener with a header from a corner in the 74th minute, before Vinícius Júnior doubled the advantage moments later.
The Dortmund-Rheinmetall deal, worth millions of euros over three years, will see the weapons-maker able to post marketing messages across Dortmund’s stadium, though not yet the coveted front-of-jersey spot for a corporate logo.
In a statement announcing the deal on Wednesday, Borussia Dortmund Chairman Hans-Joachim Watzke said the club was “opening ourselves up to a dialogue” by partnering with an arms-maker but defended the agreement by arguing that in the present reality of war in Europe, “security and defense are fundamental cornerstones of our democracy.”
Many Dortmund fans expressed their dismay at the announcement, noting that the club’s code of ethics included a commitment to a society without violence, as reported by German outlet DW.
A post on Dortmund’s fan blog Schwatzgelb.de slammed the club for its lack of transparency and questioned whether “strengthening national security is not the job of politics rather than a football club.”
In comments reported by Welt, Spokesperson for the Left Party in North Rhine-Westphalia Sascha H. Wagner noted that “sport is supposed to unite people and nations” and a company like Rheinmetall which is “partly responsible for … suffering and death caused by weapons production” could not serve as a role model in sports.
In an intersecting note, Ursula von der Leyen — a former German defense minister and the current European Commission president — unusually watched the match in Madrid with Spanish conservative Popular Party leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo.
She is networking in Spain in a bid to lock in the 361 European Parliament votes she’ll need to secure a second term atop the EU Commission.
Fair game
For Rheinmetall, the Dortmund deal is just a first step toward taking the taboo out of the business of selling arms.
Buoyed by record demand from Western allies for weapons they can send on to Ukraine — and to restock dwindling national silos — the Düsseldorf-based weapons-maker is aiming to become the world’s single largest producer of artillery ammunition this year as it looks to satisfy soaring demand, especially in Europe.
The millions of euros the sponsorship deal is reported to be worth is a fraction of the €40 billion which company officials estimate Rheinmetall is raking in from the German government’s special €100 billion fund to modernize the Bundeswehr in the wake of Russia’s all-out war on Ukraine, and the €140 million in EU subsidies received to help boost ammo production as quickly as possible.
Splashing some of that revenue on sponsorship deals for a team which plays its games at a stadium just a 45-minute drive from Rheinmetall’s corporate headquarters will potentially help transform the maker of armored vehicles and shells into an acceptable household name.
Slapping the jagged blue Rheinmetall logo on stadium walls hosting games at the highest level of the world’s most popular sport is aimed at making Rheinmetall “better known internationally,” the company’s CEO Armin Papperger said, adding that his firm should be known both as a defense industrial heavyweight and “as a driver of industrial innovations in civilian markets.”
The deal is part of a wider push within Europe’s defense industry to gain credibility as executives seek fresh access to commercial finance markets and pitch to soak up more public funding for the expansion of research facilities and factory manufacturing capacity.
But it isn’t the first controversial sponsorship deal in recent German football history. Dortmund’s biggest local rival, Schalke 04, was sponsored for a decade-plus by Russian energy giant Gazprom until Putin invaded Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to boost cooperation between Moscow and Beijing one day after Donald Trump returned as U.S.…
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/xY4wjhjSLDTkbqqwyMbQQXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Orders to reinstate agency heads on hold as court considers Trump’s appeal" title="Orders to reinstate agency heads on hold as court considers Trump’s appeal"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/court-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Orders to reinstate agency heads on hold as court considers Trump’s appeal" title="Orders to reinstate agency heads on hold as court considers Trump’s appeal" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/court-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/court-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/court-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/court-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Forders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal%2F&linkname=Orders%20to%20reinstate%20agency%20heads%20on%20hold%20as%20court%20considers%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20appeal" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Forders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal%2F&linkname=Orders%20to%20reinstate%20agency%20heads%20on%20hold%20as%20court%20considers%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20appeal" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Forders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal%2F&linkname=Orders%20to%20reinstate%20agency%20heads%20on%20hold%20as%20court%20considers%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20appeal" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Forders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal%2F&linkname=Orders%20to%20reinstate%20agency%20heads%20on%20hold%20as%20court%20considers%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20appeal" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Forders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal%2F&linkname=Orders%20to%20reinstate%20agency%20heads%20on%20hold%20as%20court%20considers%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20appeal" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Forders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal%2F&title=Orders%20to%20reinstate%20agency%20heads%20on%20hold%20as%20court%20considers%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20appeal" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/orders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal/" data-a2a-title="Orders to reinstate agency heads on hold as court considers Trump’s appeal">Share</a></p><p>Calling the situation “untenable,” the Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon, asking the justices to block orders by federal judges in Washington, D.C., that instructed government officials to allow board members at two independent agencies to remain in office despite President Donald Trump’s attempts to fire them. Soon after, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay, which put those orders on hold while the justices consider the government’s request, and called for a response by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 15.</p>
<p>D. John Sauer, Trump’s new solicitor general, told the justices that the dispute “raises a constitutional question of profound importance: whether the President can supervise and control agency heads who exercise vast executive power on the President’s behalf, or whether Congress may insulate those agency heads from presidential control by preventing the President from removing them at will.”</p>
<p>Trump, Sauer wrote, “should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation.”<span id="more-319719"></span></p>
<p>Sauer asked the justices to put orders by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras and Senior U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on hold while the Trump administration appeals, as well as an administrative stay</p>
<p>Sauer also urged the justices, whether they grant the government’s request to pause the district judges’ orders or not, to take up the dispute and rule on the merits of the cases, without waiting for the court of appeals to weigh in. Particularly if the district judges’ orders are not put on hold, Sauer suggested, the justices should order additional briefing and oral arguments in May, with a decision to follow by late June or early July.</p>
<p>The two agencies at the center of the dispute are the Merit Systems Protection Board, which oversees the federal government’s personnel practices, and the National Labor Relations Board, which protects the rights of employees in the private sector to join unions.</p>
<p>The MSPB has three members, at least one of which must be from a different political party than the other two. The members, who serve seven-year terms, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.</p>
<p>There are five members of the NLRB, each of whom is appointed for a five-year term by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Without Wilcox, the current board has only two members – Marvin Kaplan, the chair, and David Prouty – one short of the three needed for a quorum.</p>
<p>MSPB members can only be removed by the president for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Members of the NLRB can only be removed “upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.”</p>
<p>Cathy Harris was appointed to the MSPB in 2022 by then-President Joe Biden for a term that was slated to expire in 2028. She became the chair of the agency in 2024. During her time in that role, the MSPB cleared almost its entire backlog – of nearly 4,000 cases – that had built up since 2017.</p>
<p>After Trump fired Harris on Feb. 10 of this year, she went to federal court, arguing that her termination violated federal law.</p>
<p>U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled for Harris, agreeing with her that the removal protections provided to members of the MSPB are constitutional under <em><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/602/">Humphrey’s Executor v. United States</a></em>, a 1935 Supreme Court decision holding that although a president can generally fire subordinates for any reason, Congress can create independent, multi-member regulatory agencies whose commissioners can only be removed “for cause.” Contreras ordered the Trump administration to allow Harris to continue to serve until her term expires. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/seila-law-llc-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/">Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</a></em>, holding that “for cause” restrictions on the removal of the CFPB director violate the Constitution, and <em><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/594/19-422/">Collins v. Yellen</a></em>, striking down limitations on the president’s ability to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, do not affect “the constitutionality of for-cause removal provisions for multimember bodies of experts heading an independent agency,” Contreras explained. To the contrary, he stressed, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in <em>Seila Law</em> “reaffirmed the constitutionality” of such boards, “as those agencies have a robust basis in this country’s history, and their members lack the power to act unilaterally.” And the MSPB is precisely the kind of board protected under <em>Humphrey’s Executor</em>, Contreras continued, because it “does not wield substantial executive power” but “rather spends nearly all of its time adjudicating ‘inward-facing personnel matters’ involving federal employees.”</p>
<p>Gwynne Wilcox was appointed to the NLRB in 2021 by Biden, and then appointed to a second term in 2023. When Trump fired her on Jan. 27, 2025, he said that she had not “been operating in a manner consistent with” the administration’s “objectives,” had issued decisions that had “vastly exceeded” the NLRB’s powers, and that he did not have confidence that she could “fairly evaluate matters” before the board or that she would “faithfully execute” the law governing the board.</p>
<p>Wilcox went to federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to be returned to office. She argued that her termination violated the federal law governing removal of NLRB members.</p>
<p>Senior U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Wilcox had been illegally fired, and she barred Kaplan from removing Wilcox or interfering with her ability to carry out her duties. Howell concluded that <em>Humphrey’s Executor</em> was “not only binding law,” but also a “well-reasoned reflection of the balance of powers sanctioned by the Constitution.” Moreover, she added, the power of the current NLRB “is, if anything, less extensive than that of the FTC” at the time of the court’s decision in <em>Humphrey’s Executor</em>.</p>
<p>A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit paused both judges’ orders. However, the full D.C. Circuit – by a vote of 7-4 – lifted those orders, allowing Harris and Wilcox “to continue exercising the President’s executive power over the President’s express objection,” the Trump administration contends. </p>
<p><em>Humphrey’s Executor</em> does not bar the president from removing members of the MSPB and NLRB, Sauer asserted in his filing on Wednesday. In <em>Humphrey’s Executor</em>, Sauer explained, the court “recognized a narrow exception to the President’s removal power that, properly construed, extends only to ‘multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial executive power.’” But that is exactly what the MSPB and the NLRB do, Sauer insisted, by “implementing and enforcing federal labor and civil-service laws.”</p>
<p>Lower courts, in ordering reinstatement of Harris and Wilcox, contended that <em>Humphrey’s Executor</em> is still good law, and they could not overrule it. The Supreme Court cautioned, the government continued, in <em>Seila Law</em> that <em>Humphrey’s Executor</em> is not a “freestanding invitation for Congress to impose additional restrictions” on the president’s power to remove executive officials.</p>
<p>But if for-cause removal laws like the ones at issue in these cases are constitutional under <em>Humphrey’s Executor</em>, Sauer added, it plans to ask the Supreme Court to “hold, after receiving full briefing and argument,” that the case was wrong and should be overturned. But in any event, Sauer noted, the district court’s orders should be put on hold for now even under a “narrower reader” of <em>Humphrey’s Executor</em>.</p>
<p>And in any event, Sauer continued, a stay of the orders by Contreras and Howell is also warranted because federal courts do not have the power to order the return of agency heads fired by the president – in fact, no court has ever done so until this year. The courts’ intervention in these cases, Sauer wrote, “has thus thrown the NLRB’s and MSPB’s operations into chaos, cast a cloud on the lawfulness of the agencies’ actions, left the President and the Senate uncertain about whether and when they may install new officers to succeed” Wilcox and Harris, and “undermined ‘the steady administration of the laws’ that” the Constitution “seeks to secure.”</p>
<p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/09/orders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/orders-to-reinstate-agency-heads-on-hold-as-court-considers-trumps-appeal/">Orders to reinstate agency heads on hold as court considers Trump’s appeal</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>