The U.S. Supreme Court has sided again with the Trump administration in a battle over the ability of a president to remove agency commissioners. The case originated in early May of this year, after Trump was well into his second term. It started when the re-elected president notified three commissioners from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that they were being removed from their positions.
Established in 1972, the CPSC is a federal agency responsible for protecting consumers from hazardous products. It ensures the safety of consumer products (like toys, cribs, and electronics) by setting and enforcing safety standards, conducting recalls, and providing information to consumers about product safety.
The CPSC has five commissioners, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve fixed terms. According to the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), commissioners can only be removed by the President "for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." This statutory tenure protection is designed to preserve the commission's independence and partisan balance, allowing it to regulate effectively without undue influence from the executive branch.
But the second Trump administration has tested the limits of presidential power.
Trump Sacks Commissioners
The commissioners, Mary Boyle, Richard L. Trumka Jr., and Alexander Hoehn-Saric, received emails from the White House notifying them of their firings. Trump gave no reasons for the firings, simply stating that they were "terminated effective immediately." These commissioners had been appointed by President Joe Biden and had yet to serve out the remainder of their fixed terms. The firings left the commission with only two members, Republicans Peter A. Feldman and Douglas Dziak.
The move came after the CPSC voted 3-2 along party lines to publish proposed safety standards for lithium-ion batteries used in smaller products, such as electric bicycles and electric scooters. The proposal noted that the batteries had been known to catch fire, resulting in at least 39 fatalities and 181 injuries nationwide.
The Democratic commissioners objected to the firings, with Trumka stating that his firing was illegal and that he would continue protecting the American people from harm. Boyle and Hoehn-Saric also disputed the firings, with Hoehn-Saric saying that Trump's action was "unlawful and part of this Administration's efforts to eliminate federal agencies, personnel, and policies that have made Americans safer."
Commissioners Sue Trump Admin
The three sacked commissioners took the matter to federal court. They claimed that the president's removal from office exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority. They alleged that Trump removed them without "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," which is the only ground for removal specified in the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).
The plaintiffs relied on an old SCOTUS decision, Humphrey's Executor v. United States. That case held that Congress may impose for-cause removal protections on multimember bodies with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. Boyle and the other commissioners contend that the CPSC is a multimember expert body with legislative and executive powers, and that its commissioners are entitled to for-cause removal protections. They argued that Trump's removal of them without cause was a violation of their statutory rights and that the court should order their reinstatement.
The defendants included Trump, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Acting Chairman of the CPSC. They argued that the President has the authority to remove CPSC commissioners at will, notwithstanding the CPSA's specification that commissioners may be removed only for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." They claim that the CPSC commissioners exercise substantial executive power and do not fit within the narrow exceptions to the President's removal power recognized by the Supreme Court.
A Battle of Presidents and Precedents
The defendants claim that instead of the Humphrey’s Executor case, a different SCOTUS case should control: Seila Law v. CFPB. That case considered the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), under which the Director could not be removed except for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. SCOTUS held that this structure was unconstitutional because it wielded substantial executive power and was not a multimember agency.
Trump and his appointees argued that, similarly, the CPSC Commissioners exercise substantial executive power and are not a multimember body with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions. Therefore, they claim, a president's authority to remove them at will is not restricted by the CPSA's for-cause removal provision.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox disagreed, relying on Humphrey’s Executor and issuing an order requiring the Trump administration to reinstate the three commissioners. The Trump administration then took the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, but they didn’t find support there, either. President Trump then turned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene.
Wilcox Whiplash
SCOTUS had been grappling with another Trump lawsuit, Trump v. Wilcox, that would end up influencing the CPSC case. On May 22, the Court issued an emergency stay of a lower court's order that had reinstated two Biden-appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The court's decision effectively allowed President Trump to remove these officials from their positions, despite a federal law that protects them from removal without cause.
The court's order was issued in an unsigned opinion, which is typical for emergency decisions. The majority cited the need to prevent harm to the government and the public interest, but did not provide a detailed explanation of its reasoning. So, should we have really been surprised when SCOTUS did the same thing in the CPSC case?
Shadow Docket Strikes Again
Last week, the Court issued another brief, unsigned order, much like in Wilcox, through its “shadow docket.” SCOTUS agreed to pause Maddox's order (ruling that had directed the Trump administration to reinstate the three commissioners) while litigation continues.
The majority explained that the case was "squarely controlled" by its ruling in Wilcox. The court's decision was based on the fact that the CPSC exercises executive power in a similar manner as the NLRB, and because the case is otherwise pretty similar to Wilcox. The court's decision will allow Trump to proceed with firing the three Democratic commissioners without cause. Of course, this decision is not the last word in the case, which is still pending in the lower courts.
Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. Kagan pointed out that the majority were effectively letting a president fire commissioners for seemingly no reason other than the fact that their political leanings are toward the other end of the spectrum. This, she said, negates Congress's choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.
Related Resources:
- The Legal Battles Over DOGE's Powers and Federal Spending (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- SCOTUS Unfreezes Trump's Plan to Slash Federal Agencies (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- A Civil Response: Government Workers Prepare for Attempted Purges by the Trump Administration (FindLaw's Courtside)
