{"id":87859,"date":"2025-07-24T05:44:25","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T05:44:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/87859\/"},"modified":"2025-07-24T05:44:25","modified_gmt":"2025-07-24T05:44:25","slug":"trump-can-fire-the-3-democrats-on-the-consumer-product-safety-commission-supreme-court-says","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/87859\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump can fire the 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Supreme Court says"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON\u00a0\u2014\u00a0The Supreme Court signaled again Wednesday that it believes the president has the power to fire the leaders of agencies and commissions that Congress said were independent. <\/p>\n

Granting another emergency appeal, the justices set aside a Baltimore judge\u2019s order and upheld President Trump\u2019s decision<\/a> to fire the three Democratic appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission. <\/p>\n

In a brief order, the conservative majority said agency officials may be fired by the president. <\/p>\n

The three liberals dissented. <\/p>\n

\u201cOnce again, this Court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress,\u201d Justice Elena Kagan said. \u201cBy allowing the President to remove commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress\u2019s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.\u201d <\/p>\n

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed. <\/p>\n

The court\u2019s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with Trump and against district judges on matters related to federal agencies, including their spending, staffing and leadership. <\/p>\n

They believe the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to control the government, including by firing and replacing the heads of agencies, boards and commissions. <\/p>\n

They have ruled for Trump even when his removal orders conflicted with the law as established by Congress.<\/p>\n

At issue is whether Congress holds the power to structure the government or whether the president instead has the executive authority to reshape it.<\/p>\n

Since 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was established to set railroad rates, Congress has created independent agencies with the aim of giving nonpartisan experts the authority to regulate in the public interest. <\/p>\n

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was established in 1972 to be led by five members who were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They would have seven-year terms and could be fired only for \u201cneglect of duty or malfeasance in office.\u201d<\/p>\n

The commission investigates complaints about hazardous products, and it can require warning labels, order their recall or remove them from the market. <\/p>\n

In May, the Trump White House told the commission\u2019s three Democratic appointees \u2014 Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. \u2014 they were \u201cterminated,\u201d but without accusing them of wrongdoing or malfeasance. <\/p>\n

They sued in a federal court in Maryland where the CPSC has its headquarters. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee, ruled the firings were illegal and reinstated the three to their positions. <\/p>\n

The judge pointed to the Supreme Court\u2019s 1935 decision that protected the constitutionality of \u201ctraditional multi-member independent agencies.\u201d <\/p>\n

The court\u2019s opinion in the case of Humphrey\u2019s Executor vs. United States<\/a> drew a distinction between \u201cpurely executive officers\u201d who were under the president\u2019s control and those who served on a board \u201cwith quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions.\u201d <\/p>\n

But the court\u2019s conservatives have hinted they may overturn that precedent. <\/p>\n

Five years ago, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. spoke for the court and ruled the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can be fired by the president, even though Congress had said otherwise. <\/p>\n

But since that case did not involve a multimember board or commission, it did not overrule the 1935 precedent. <\/p>\n

In late May, however, the court cleared the way for Trump to fire a Democratic appointee on the National Labor Relations Board and a second on the Merit Systems Protection Board.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf,\u201d the court said then in an unsigned order.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, said that decision should have cleared the way for the firing of the three members of the CPSC.<\/p>\n

But the 4th Circuit Court stood behind Maddox\u2019s order.<\/p>\n

The Constitution \u201centrusts Congress with the power to design independent agencies that serve the public interest free from political pressure,\u201d said Judge James Wynn of the 4th Circuit. \u201cHere, Congress lawfully constrained the President\u2019s removal authority. … The district court correctly declined to permit a President \u2014 any President \u2014 to disregard those limits.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON\u00a0\u2014\u00a0The Supreme Court signaled again Wednesday that it believes the president has the power to fire the leaders…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":87860,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[3387,27167,327,58956,58953,281,58954,58955,58952,58957,50,8145,6172,5207,278,277,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-87859","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"category-us","9":"tag-board","10":"tag-commission","11":"tag-congress","12":"tag-conservative-majority","13":"tag-consumer-product-safety-commission","14":"tag-court","15":"tag-democratic-appointee","16":"tag-executive-authority","17":"tag-independent-agency","18":"tag-malfeasance","19":"tag-news","20":"tag-order","21":"tag-power","22":"tag-president","23":"tag-supreme-court","24":"tag-trump","25":"tag-united-states","26":"tag-unitedstates","27":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114906625851767463","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87859","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=87859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87859\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/87860"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}