Three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have petitioned the Supreme Court to keep a federal judge’s decision in Maryland that mandates their reinstatement in effect. The Trump administration had previously dismissed these members, Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka, but the commissioners are asking the court to uphold the order allowing them to retain their positions.
The CPSC, established over fifty years ago, has a mission to protect consumers by minimizing the risk of injuries associated with consumer products. The commission is made up of five members, with restrictions on political affiliation, and its members can only be removed for specific reasons such as neglect or malfeasance. The recent firings commenced in early May when Boyle, Trumka, and subsequently Hoehn-Saric, were notified of their terminations.
The commissioners challenged the decision in court, arguing that the dismissals lacked just cause, which they claim is necessary under the governing statutes. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox supported their position, citing the Supreme Court’s 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which allows for the creation of independent agencies where removals must be for cause.
The U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review Maddox’s ruling based on a recent decision allowing former President Trump to dismiss members of other independent multi-member agencies. However, the commissioners maintained that the CPSC’s structure and functions are similar to those described in Humphrey’s Executor, supporting the view that their protections are constitutional as interpreted by other appellate courts.
The commissioners have also argued that the Trump administration failed to demonstrate any immediate harm resulting from their continued employment, highlighting their four months of service without complaint and the government’s delay in pursuing an administrative stay. They urged the justices to allow the 4th Circuit to review the case prior to any Supreme Court intervention, emphasizing that such a preemptive move would be exceptionally rare.