Supreme Court Supports Trump Administration in CPSC Commissioner Dismissals
The United States Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), following their reinstatement by a federal judge. This decision came after an emergency appeal by the Justice Department, asserting that President Trump has the authority to remove commissioners without providing a cause.
President Trump had dismissed the Democratic commissioners in May without explanation, despite a federal statute that permits removal only for “neglect of duty or malfeasance.” The court’s brief, unsigned rationale cited similarities to previous cases where Trump was permitted to dismiss board members from other independent agencies, despite congressional protections.
Three liberal justices expressed dissent over the decision. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for herself, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, stated, “By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.”
The CPSC, established in 1972, plays a crucial role in consumer protection by overseeing product recalls and taking legal action against non-compliant companies. The commissioners in question were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden.
In June, U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled the dismissals unlawful, distinguishing the CPSC’s role from other agencies. However, a month earlier, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority had not reinstated members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, interpreting the Constitution as allowing the president to dismiss board members “without cause.”
The administration maintains that all agencies fall under the president’s purview as head of the executive branch. Judge Maddox, nominated by Biden, pointed out the challenges in defining the CPSC’s duties as solely executive.
This controversy could lead the court to reconsider the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which restricted presidential power to fire independent board members without cause. This landmark decision paved the way for the establishment of strong independent federal agencies. However, it has faced criticism from conservative legal scholars who argue these agencies should be accountable to the president.
Justice Kagan noted that the court has “all but overturned Humphrey’s Executor.” Meanwhile, similar dismissal cases are progressing to the high court, including the removal of a Federal Trade Commission member, the body involved in the original Humphrey’s Executor case.
Recently, a federal judge reinstated Rebecca Slaughter as a commissioner, only for an appeals court to temporarily block the order, sidelining her again. The CPSC’s structure requires a partisan balance, with no more than three commissioners from the president’s party, intended to ensure presidential influence without total control. Attorneys for the dismissed commissioners argue that such terminations risk compromising the commission’s independence.
