FOLLOW US

In a dramatic decision shaking the foundation of federal regulatory independence, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that former President Donald Trump had the authority to fire three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)—despite a federal judge’s ruling to the contrary.

The high court granted Trump’s emergency request to stay a Maryland judge’s order mandating the reinstatement of CPSC Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr., all appointed by President Joe Biden. The commissioners had been serving terms extending through 2025, 2027, and 2028, respectively, when they were abruptly dismissed without cause.

Echoes of “Wilcox” as Court Sidesteps Landmark Precedent

The unsigned ruling echoed the Court’s prior decision in Trump v. Wilcox, in which justices blocked the reinstatement of members from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit System Protection Board. Once again, the justices leaned into the notion that allowing a removed officer to wield executive power poses a greater constitutional risk than wrongly removing them.

“This case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect,” the majority wrote, setting a clear precedent for how similar disputes might be handled going forward.

However, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson strongly dissented. Writing for the trio, Justice Kagan accused the conservative majority of “effectively expunging” the foundational Humphrey’s Executor precedent—without full argument, briefing, or transparency.

High Stakes for Agency Independence

At the heart of this legal slugfest is the future of independent federal agencies. The Humphrey’s Executor ruling of 1935 had long shielded commissioners of such agencies from arbitrary dismissal by the president. Trump’s lawyers argued that the CPSC—like the NLRB and FTC—exercises executive powers and should therefore be under presidential control.

Trump’s emergency application, filed July 2, lambasted Judge Matthew J. Maddox for transferring “control of the CPSC from Trump to Biden” and unleashing “chaos and dysfunction.” The district judge, a Biden appointee, had ruled that Trump violated 15 U.S.C. Section 2053(a), which permits removal of CPSC officials only for “neglect of duty or malfeasance.”

Maddox granted summary judgment to the commissioners on June 13 and rejected Trump’s argument that such statutory protections violate the Constitution’s Article II removal authority.

Supreme Court Declines Fast-Track Review — But the Message Is Loud and Clear

Although the justices denied Trump’s request to leapfrog the Fourth Circuit and hear the merits before judgment, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed that granting early review would have been “better practice.”

Trump’s legal team pointed to a parallel July 17 ruling by D.C. Judge Loren L. AliKhan, who reinstated former FTC commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, as further proof of lower courts ignoring the Supreme Court’s precedent.

“This Court should step in to stop lower courts from treating Wilcox like the proverbial excursion ticket—good for one day and trip only,” Trump’s counsel argued.

Commissioners Fire Back: Courts Are Simply Following the Law

Boyle, Hoehn-Saric, and Trumka, represented by attorneys from the Public Citizen Litigation Group, pushed back in a July 11 filing, contending that judges Maddox and AliKhan were merely applying existing precedent.

“Rather than creating a ‘cloud of uncertainty,’ courts have been issuing reasoned judgments subject to appellate review,” the commissioners stated.

They emphasized that the CPSC’s structure remains strikingly similar to the 1935 FTC—administering statutes, issuing regulations, and initiating litigation. As long as Humphrey’s Executor stands, they insisted, so do their removal protections.

Legal Titans Clash Behind the Scenes

The federal government’s case is spearheaded by D. John Sauer from the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office. Representing the ousted commissioners are Nicolas A. Sansone, Allison M. Zieve, and Stephanie Garlock of Public Citizen.

While the Court declined to resolve the broader constitutional issue definitively, its repeated emergency rulings have ignited a firestorm over the future of agency independence and presidential authority.

The battle lines are drawn—and the fate of America's regulatory apparatus may hang in the balance.