It's similar to other firings of Biden-era appointees without citing a cause
July 24, 2025
-
High court permits removal of three Democratic commissioners from Consumer Product Safety Commission
-
Order follows previous rulings expanding presidential control over executive agencies
-
Dissent warns of erosion of bipartisan agency protections established by Congress
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed President Trump to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a five-member panel responsible for ensuring the safety of everyday products such as toys, cribs, and electronics.
The court issued a brief, unsigned order granting Trumps emergency application to oust the commissioners, citing a May precedent that upheld his ability to fire leaders of other independent agencies. The decision came over the objections of the courts three liberal justices, who dissented strongly, warning of long-term consequences for agency independence and congressional intent.
In May, President Trump notified commissioners Mary T. Boyle, Richard L. Trumka Jr., and Alexander Hoehn-Saric of their dismissal without citing cause, despite a federal law permitting removal only for neglect of duty or malfeasance. The commissioners argued they were targeted for policy disagreements, including efforts to block unsafe lithium-ion batteries and opposition to staffing cuts.
Trumka took to Elon Musks platform X to denounce what he called an attempted takeover of the agency by political operatives.
I said no to DOGE political operatives trying to take over the agency from within. Thats when they came for me, Trumka posted after his dismissal on May 9.
Trumkas X account was soon deleted, leading him to accuse Musk and the administration of politically motivated censorship. He has since launched a new account to continue speaking out. They are trying to silence me, Trumka wrote. This isnt just censorship. This is un-American.
Legal battle still rages
The Supreme Courts order does not conclude the case. The legality of the firings remains under review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and may ultimately return to the high court for a full decision.Following their removal, the officials were barred from using agency resources or entering offices unescorted. But in June, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Maddox, a Biden appointee, reinstated the commissioners, ruling that their was illegal.
The Fourth Circuit declined to pause that ruling in early July. In a concurring opinion, Judge James A. Wynn Jr. emphasized thatHumphreys Executorremains binding precedent.
Eroding safeguards
The firings triggered a rollback of recent safety initiatives. One of the first actions by the remaining commissioners was to cancel a proposed rule aimed at reducing fires caused by lithium-ion battery failuresa rising concern in consumer electronics.
We had 333 recalls last year covering over 150 million products, Trumka told reporters. Youre going to start seeing fewer of those. People can get hurt in the interim.
The Biden-appointed commissioners had built bipartisanor, as Trumka emphasized, nonpartisansupport for consumer safety rules protecting children and vulnerable populations. Their removal, critics argue, is another signal that the administration aims to reshape independent agencies into extensions of executive power.
A pattern of executive empowerment
This latest ruling continues a trend by the Supreme Court during Trumps second term of granting the president broad authority over the executive branch. Recent decisions have weakened the long-standing precedent set by Humphreys Executor v. United States (1935), which limited presidential power to fire officials at independent agencies unless they engaged in specific misconduct.
The justices previously allowed Trump to remove leaders from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board on similar grounds, asserting that the Constitutions vesting of executive power in the president includes authority over these officials. Wednesdays order echoed that reasoning, declaring that officials who exercise such power must be accountable to the president.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented in writing, criticizing the majority for disregarding Congresss explicit decision to structure the CPSC as a bipartisan, independent body. She warned that allowing removals based solely on party affiliation undermines the commissions intended function.
By allowing the president to remove commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congresss choice of agency bipartisanship and independence, Kagan wrote.
Kavanaugh urges faster resolution
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred with the majority but stressed the need for expedited resolution in such precedent-testing cases. He noted that the current approach leaves agencies and courts in a cloud of uncertainty.
While the ruling represents another expansion of executive control, its full implications may hinge on the final outcome of the pending appeals. In the meantime, the status of agency independenceand the balance of power between the presidency and Congressremains in flux.
Trump “dismantling” the CPSC
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) yesterday accused the Trump White House of attempting to “dismantle” the agency by merging it into the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as Trump’s One Big Bill proposes.
There is no agency that saves more lives or more money, he said, according to WSHU Radio.And right now the administration is about to waste both lives and money by essentially dismantling this agency and strangling it with a lack of funding.
#Supreme #Court #backs #Trump #firing #Consumer #Product #Safety #Commissioners