Photo: Alamy
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Trump administration, granting permission to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who had been reinstated by a lower court after President Donald Trump fired them earlier this year.
The high court granted the Justice Department’s emergency request, reversing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, who found the dismissals unlawful. The court’s three liberal members dissented.
The dispute centered on presidential authority over federal agencies. The Justice Department argued that, as head of the executive branch, Trump had the constitutional power to remove commissioners without cause. The three Democrats had been appointed to seven-year terms by President Joe Biden and were part of the five-member commission tasked with protecting consumers from hazardous products.
Maddox, a Biden appointee based in Baltimore, attempted to distinguish the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from other federal bodies where the court has upheld broader presidential removal powers. He noted the agency’s mixed structure, which includes elements of independence from the executive branch.
The ruling comes just weeks after the court’s conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. In those cases, the court affirmed that the Constitution allows the president to dismiss board members without cause. As with Wednesday’s decision, the liberal justices dissented.
The CPSC was established in 1972 to oversee consumer safety by initiating recalls, issuing safety warnings, and enforcing product standards. Its bipartisan structure requires that no more than three of its five commissioners belong to the president’s party, and members serve staggered terms to preserve continuity across administrations.
Attorneys for the dismissed commissioners warned that their removal could erode the commission’s independence. They pointed to the agency’s design, which they said provides each president with influence but prevents direct control.
The broader legal conflict could lead the court to revisit Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 precedent that limited a president’s ability to fire members of independent regulatory bodies without cause. That unanimous decision laid the foundation for modern independent federal agencies regulating everything from labor to broadcasting.
Conservative legal scholars have long criticized the ruling, arguing that it grants unelected officials excessive power and undermines executive accountability. A reversal could reshape the balance of power between the White House and independent federal agencies.
