The Trump administration has recently sought the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt a ruling from a federal judge in Maryland. This ruling ordered the reinstatement of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who were dismissed by President Trump in May. The administration is arguing that this legal move is necessary while they pursue an appeal in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and, if required, the Supreme Court.
The crux of the legal dispute is rooted in the administration’s firing of CPSC commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka, all originally appointed by President Biden. The CPSC’s founding legislation stipulates that no more than three commissioners can be from the same political party, and a commissioner’s removal can only be justified by “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” The dismissed commissioners challenged their firing in court, arguing it wasn’t for sufficient cause. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with their contention, referring to the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which allows for the protection of independent, multi-member regulatory agency commissioners from dismissal without cause.
The Supreme Court had previously set a precedent with a May 22 decision allowing the president to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board during ongoing legal challenges over their firings. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that this precedent should have guided the decision in the CPSC case, describing Judge Maddox’s ruling as a disruptive deviation [Court Filing].
The government’s request to pause Maddox’s order was earlier denied by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal to the Supreme Court thus seeks to mitigate what the administration views as a challenge to the executive powers bestowed upon the president by Article II of the Constitution. Solicitor General Sauer highlighted the potential chaos and dysfunction at the CPSC resulting from the ruling, asserting that the commissioners’ reinstatement would transfer control of the agency against the electoral mandate [Related Case].
The Supreme Court’s response to this request could have implications for executive authority over independent agencies and further define the balance of power between the presidency and regulatory bodies. As the legal developments unfold, both the immediate and long-term impact on the CPSC and similar federal agencies will be closely watched by legal experts and industry stakeholders alike [SCOTUSblog].