Infant cushion safety rule challenged in D.C. Appeals Court

The suit claims the Consumer Product Safety Commission exceeded its authority

June 4, 2025

• Groupasks court to strike down what it calls an illegal CPSC rule regulating infant support cushions

• The group argues the agency used a shortcut reserved only for durable goods, which it said doesnt apply

• At stake is the future of the popular Snuggle Me Infant Lounger and thousands of similar products

---

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely passes new rules to protect consumers from various safety risks, a process that sometimes doesn’t go over well with the manufacturers of those products.

Such is the fate of a rule enacted on May 5 to protect infants from suffocating. The commission took the action after itfound that “infant support cushions” hadcontributed to unsafe sleep conditions, leading to 17 known deaths in 2020 and at least 17 more deaths in 2021.

“Today marks momentous progress in CPSCs efforts to keep sleeping babies alive,” said CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka after the commission enacted the rule.

The new safety standard, said Trumka, would “make the world safer for a lot of babies.”

Taking issue with the rule isThe New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), whichis urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to vacate the new safety rule, claiming the CPSC overstepped its authority and used an improper process to enforce the regulation.

Trumka and two other commissioners,Mary Boyleand Alexander Hoehn-Saric, were ousted from their positionsby Trump Administration officials earlier in May and have contested their dismissal on the grounds that the action was illegal. A judge last week denied their motion that they be returned to their positions while thecase is litigated.

Infant Loungers in Legal Limbo: CPSC vs. Snuggle Me Rule

1. The Legal Battle

• Challenger: New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA)

• Target: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

• Issue: Fast-tracked safety rule regulating infant support cushions

• Core Argument: Rule was illegally applied using a shortcut meant only for durable goods

2. Case at a Glance

Case Name: Heroes Technology (Snuggle Me Organic) v. CPSC
Filed In: U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Key Product Affected: Snuggle Me Infant Lounger

CPSC chose a regulatory shortcut that ignores the limits of the agencys power.
Kara Rollins, NCLA

3. Impact on Industry

• Production Halted for Snuggle Me Infant Lounger

• Economic Blow to small manufacturers

• Thousands of similar products potentially affected

4. Why the Rule Was Made

• Effective Date: May 5

• Deaths Linked to Cushions:

  • 2020: 17 infants

  • 2021: 17+ more

This closes one of the largest remaining product safety gaps.
Commissioner Richard Trumka

5. CPSCs Justification

New Product Category Created: Infant Support Cushions
Goal: Prevent unsafe sleep conditions
Larger Strategy: Align with other new rules on nursing pillows & sleep products
Estimated Annual Infant Sleep Deaths: 3,600+

6. The Debate Over Durability

CPSC Says	NCLA Says
Loungers are part of sleep safety rules	Loungers are not “durable” items
Rule protects infants quickly	Rule bypassed legal process
Needed to close safety loopholes	Rule is arbitrary and capricious

7. Whats Next?

• Judge denied request to reinstate ousted commissioners (Trumka, Boyle, Hoehn-Saric)

• Court to decide whether to vacate the safety rule

• Broader implications for how federal agencies regulate childrens products

Procedural matters at issue

The case, Heroes Technology (US) LLC d/b/a Snuggle Me Organic v. CPSC, centers around a CPSC rule that created a new product categoryinfant support cushionsand imposed mandatory safety standards on items like the Snuggle Me Infant Lounger, a cushion used to cradle infants when they are awake.

NCLA argues that CPSC misclassified these textile-based products as durable goods, such as cribs or strollers, in order to fast-track regulation through an expedited rulemaking process. It argues that the shortcut is only permitted for traditional durable infant or toddler products, not for soft fabric items like loungers, the group contends.

CPSC chose a regulatory shortcut that not only ignores the limits of the agencys power but also used less rigorous methods than required, said Kara Rollins, litigation counsel at NCLA. When it comes to infant safety, the Commission should be focused on the best rules, not the fastest process.

As a result of the rule, Heroes Technology had to halt production of its top-selling lounger, impacting its business and potentially thousands of similar products from other small companies, NCLA alleges.

Trumka said at the time the new rule was enacted that it was part of a package of regulations aimed at protecting infants.

“This is a major piece of the safe infant sleep puzzle, because when combined with CPSCs recently effective rule to make nursing pillows safer CPSCs broad infant sleep products rule this closes one of the largest remaining product safety gaps contributing to unsafe sleep,” he said in a prepared statement.

“This will put a stop to companies avoiding safety standards by calling their baby pillows by different nameswe now cover the field for any such products,” he said. “Over 3,600 infants die in their sleep each year, many tied to unsafe sleep environments.”

The NCLA claims the agency rushed the process, failed to address concerns raised by producers, and did not properly justify its actionsmaking the rule arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal regulations to be both reasonable and clearly explained.

CPSCs failure to maintain a consistent, textual definition of durable threatens parents access to useful products, said John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at NCLA. The alternatives parents will turn to in the absence of those products are unknown and unaddressed.

#Infant #cushion #safety #rule #challenged #D.C #Appeals #Court