From Fired to Rehired: CPSC Chaos Reaches Supreme Court

The fired U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Democrats are back in their seats and stirring the pot, prompting the Trump administration to make an emergency plea to the Supreme Court for relief. What started as presidential housecleaning has become a constitutional showdown that could reshape executive power dynamics for decades.

President Trump fired Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. in May, asserting executive authority to restructure the agency. The commissioners sued, stating they can only be removed “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office”—not at presidential discretion.

U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Maddox ruled in the commissioners’ favor in June, ordering their immediate reinstatement. His decision relied on the 1935 Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. Federal Trade Commission, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), which established limits on presidential removal power for independent agency commissioners.

Following Judge Maddox’s June ruling, the reinstated commissioners quickly reasserted their authority, reversing actions taken by the remaining Republican commissioners during their absence. Commissioners Boyle, Hoehn-Saric, and Trumka contend that any votes taken since their termination are invalid because their firings were invalid at the outset. For example, the reinstated commissioners overturned a vote to withdraw a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing a new safety standard for lithium-ion batteries in e-mobility devices. The administration has characterized the situation as “untenable chaos” requiring urgent judicial intervention.

The administration appealed to the Fourth Circuit but hit a wall. The Court of Appeals denied the stay request, with Judge James Andrew Wynn noting in his concurrence that President Trump terminated the commissioners “without finding—or even alleging—any neglect or malfeasance.”

Now the Supreme Court holds the cards. The administration’s emergency application to stay the judgment of the District Court paints a picture of agency dysfunction, describing the commissioners’ return as a “court-ordered takeover” that undermines legitimate agency operations.

The commissioners counter that the government hasn’t demonstrated concrete harm from their continued service. They argue that repeatedly removing and reinstating officers creates more disruption than allowing them to serve pending appeal.

This fight extends well beyond consumer product safety regulations. At its core lies a fundamental challenge to the 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent of Humphrey’s Executor. The administration’s brief puts the question squarely to the Supreme Court: “This Court should grant certiorari before judgment now, hear argument in the fall, and put a speedy end to the disruption being caused by uncertainty about the scope of Humphrey’s Executor.”

In October 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar challenge to the structure of CPSC, which would have required the Court to decide whether to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. But the Court’s conservative majority has recently signaled skepticism toward removal protections. In May, the Court allowed President Trump to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board while litigation over their removal proceeds, suggesting the justices may be ready to overturn decades of precedent that has shielded independent agencies from political interference.

If the Court ultimately sides with the administration, it could fundamentally reshape the federal bureaucracy and eliminate statutory protections that have insulated independent agencies from presidential control for nearly a century. The outcome will likely influence pending challenges at other agencies and establish precedent for future removal disputes across the federal government.

Companies regulated by CPSC should brace for continued uncertainty in the coming months. Agency priorities and enforcement approaches may shift depending on which commissioners maintain control during the ongoing litigation. We will continue to monitor these developments and provide updates.

Delaney Ho, a summer associate in our San Diego office, contributed to the writing of this article.