The Supreme Court on Wednesday said President Donald Trump could proceed with the firing of three Democratic members of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who were fired and then reinstated to their roles on the board — the latest high-stakes court clash centered on Trump’s authority as authority to remove or otherwise control the fate of independent agency.
The majority sided with the Trump administration in a 6-3 vote on the emergency order, the last of the Supreme Court’s current term. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court in early July to stay the decision of a lower court judge in Maryland who sided with the three ousted board members, Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee, ruled that their firings were unlawful and ordered they be reinstated to their roles.
The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to grant the Trump administration’s request to stay the order, clearing the way for the administration to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court.
In its emergency filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer pointed to the court’s decision in another, factually similar emergency case reviewed by the high court earlier this year, in which justices agreed to temporarily block the reinstatements of board members for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
Sauer pointed to the factual similarities underpinning both cases, and argued that the high court’s emergency decision there ‘squarely controls this case.’
The CPSC board members disputed that notion in their own Supreme Court filing — arguing that their removals from the CPSC would ‘disrupt the status quo’ from an agency dedicated to consumer protection and safety.
They also pointed to the timing of their removals, noting that the Trump administration made no attempt to oust them for four months — a delay they argue shows no urgency and undercuts any claim of ‘irreparable harm,’ a key standard for emergency court action.
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected the government’s request to temporarily freeze Maddox’s order, the government appealed it to the Supreme Court.
In his ruling, Maddox said that the tenured design and protection of the five-member, staggered-term CPSC board does ‘not interfere with’ Trump’s executive branch powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
The case is the latest in a string of challenges centered on Trump’s ability to remove members of independent boards. Like the NLRB and MSPB rulings, it centers on the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, in which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.
Maddox invoked the uncertainty created by the preliminary posture of the NLRB and MSPB cases, which saw both plaintiffs removed and reinstated to their positions multiple times — which he said was the basis for ordering more permanent injunctive relief.
‘Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again,’ said Maddox. ‘The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment.’
In his ruling, Maddox said that the tenured design and protection of the five-member, staggered-term CPSC board does ‘not interfere with’ Trump’s executive branch powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
