The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to allow the president to fire officials at independent agencies, teeing up a case that could significantly expand the president’s control over the executive branch.

Trump has run a bulldozer over agency independence since taking office, breaking precedent by removing Democratic members from boards and commissions in the middle of their terms. Several officials have won temporary reinstatement to their jobs arguing their terminations violated the law and Supreme Court precedent.

The White House is now hoping the court will block those reinstatements and bless Trump’s firings.

The administration’s filing Wednesday revolves around two particular officials Trump ousted: Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. But a broad ruling in the case could apply to a slew of officials Trump has fired, and give the president much greater influence over traditionally independent bodies.

A 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor protects officials at independent, quasi-judicial bodies from being removed except as authorized by Congress. But the White House argues that such limits on the president’s power are unconstitutional and wants the court’s conservative supermajority to overturn them.

“This case raises a constitutional question of profound importance,” Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, wrote in the filing. “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.”

In addition to firing board members at the NLRB and MSPB, Trump has also removed Democratic officials at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, among others.

In some cases, his removals have eliminated quorums at the relevant agencies so they can no longer carry out their missions.

A Supreme Court ruling in the administration’s favor would likely make these agencies operate in a more partisan manner, since the president would be able to clean house at will and nominate new members.

The NLRB, for instance, traditionally has three members from the president’s party and two from the opposing party, serving staggered terms. But if the court blesses Trump’s firing of Wilcox, there’s nothing in the law to block the president from stocking the board entirely with Republicans.

It would also enable the president to control policymaking at these independent agencies, since officials would essentially be working at the pleasure of the president.

Wilma Liebman, a former NLRB member, told HuffPost in February that Trump’s firing of Wilcox could destroy the agency’s independence if it were allowed to stand.

“It has the intent, I suppose, of trying to transform a neutral, objective, adjudicatory body into Trump’s henchmen,” she said.