The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The commissioners had been fired by President Trump but later reinstated by a federal judge.
The Justice Department quickly appealed, contending that the agency falls under the president’s control. Furthermore, they argued the president can remove commissioners without giving a reason. Consequently, this case highlights ongoing debates about presidential removal powers and the scope of executive authority.
Earlier in May, Trump fired all three Democrats on the five-member board without explanation. However, a federal law states commissioners can only be fired for “neglect of duty or malfeasance.”
Subsequently, the Court gave a brief explanation. It noted this case is like previous ones where it allowed Trump to fire independent agency members protected by Congress. Therefore, this ruling reinforces the broad reach of presidential removal powers.However, the three liberal justices dissented strongly. Justice Elena Kagan warned this ruling might gradually transfer power from Congress to the presidency. Justices Sotomayor and Brown Jackson joined her dissent.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission plays a vital role. It protects consumers by issuing recalls and suing companies that sell dangerous products. The removed commissioners were appointed by President Biden for seven-year terms.
In June, U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox ruled that firing the commissioners violated the law. Maddox, a Biden appointee, argued the commission’s role differs from other agencies where the Court allowed removals.
Previously, the Supreme Court refused to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Court reasoned that the president has constitutional authority to fire board members without cause.
The administration claims all such agencies answer to the president as the executive branch head. Maddox disagreed, saying the product safety commission does more than execute laws.
This ongoing dispute might push the Court to reconsider a nearly century-old ruling called Humphrey’s Executor. That 1935 decision protects independent agency members from removal without cause.
Humphrey’s Executor helped establish strong federal agencies that regulate labor, discrimination, and communications. Conservatives argue this system undermines presidential control and contradicts the Constitution.
Justice Kagan remarked that the Court has “all but overturned Humphrey’s Executor.” She warned of dangerous shifts in power tied to presidential removal powers.
Meanwhile, similar removals continue. A federal judge recently ordered FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter reinstated after her firing. However, an appeals court temporarily blocked that order.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission, created in 1972, requires a partisan balance. It limits commissioners to three from the president’s party. Members serve staggered terms to ensure stability.
The fired commissioners’ lawyers argue the recent removals threaten the commission’s independence. They stress that the commission must remain free from total presidential control.
Overall, this case highlights the intense debate over presidential removal powers and the future of independent federal agencies. The Supreme Court’s decision puts these powers firmly back in focus.
For more political updates, visit DC Brief.
