The Trump administration, in a recent move, has directly approached the Supreme Court to seek the removal of three Democratic members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission after their reinstatement by a federal judge. These three individuals, initially dismissed by former President Donald Trump, had been challenging the legality of their terminations.
In its submission to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department claimed that President Trump had the authority to dismiss members of independent agencies, hinging their argument on a prior Supreme Court ruling that supported a strong interpretation of presidential powers. This request from the administration includes an immediate directive to allow the dismissals to proceed despite the commissioners’ legal objections.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission plays a critical role in safeguarding consumers by recalling hazardous products and taking legal action against companies that violate safety standards. The three Democrats whom Trump removed in May were originally appointed by President Joe Biden, and their tenure was supposed to last for seven years.
However, U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore determined the firings to be illegal. Maddox differentiated the commission’s responsibilities from those of other boards where dismissals were accepted by the Supreme Court.
This situation follows a prior instance where the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc chose not to reestablish the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board members, asserting the Constitution grants the president the discretion to remove board members “without cause.” This ruling was not supported by the three liberal justices.
The administration insists that these agencies fall under Trump’s jurisdiction as part of the executive branch leadership. Judge Maddox, who was appointed by Biden, pointed out the complexity of categorizing the product safety commission’s duties as entirely executive.
The broader debate on presidential firing powers could lead the court to revisit the landmark decision from 90 years ago known as Humphrey’s Executor. Stemming from a 1935 case, this verdict determined presidents lacked the authority to dismiss independent board members without justification.
This precedent ushered in a period where numerous independent federal agencies wielded substantial regulatory power over sectors like labor, discrimination, and communications, which has long been contested by conservative legal scholars.
Formed in 1972, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is designed to maintain partisan balance, allowing only three members from the president’s party among its five. The commissioners serve staggered terms, ensuring each president can influence but not dominate the commission, according to the attorneys representing the fired commissioners. They have emphasized in legal filings that these recent dismissals threaten the commission’s autonomy.