Supreme Court Approves Trump's Removal of 3 Democratic Commissioners

Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Remove Democratic Members of Consumer Product Safety Commission

The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a decision that has significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies. On Wednesday, the court allowed the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), who had been fired by President Donald Trump and later reinstated by a federal judge.

This move came after the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal, arguing that the agency is under the control of the president and that he has the authority to remove commissioners without providing a reason. This action aligns with Trump’s approach in May when he dismissed all three Democratic commissioners on the five-person board without offering any justification. This contradicted a federal law that permits the removal of commissioners only for "neglect of duty or malfeasance."

The Supreme Court provided a brief, unsigned explanation, stating that the case resembles previous ones where it allowed Trump to fire board members of other independent agencies, which Congress had protected from arbitrary dismissals. However, the three liberal justices dissented, expressing concerns about the potential consequences of this decision.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for herself and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that such actions could lead to the gradual transfer of authority from one branch of government to another. She emphasized the importance of maintaining checks and balances within the federal system.

The CPSC plays a critical role in protecting consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing companies that violate safety standards, and more. The fired commissioners had been serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. Their removal raised questions about the independence of the commission and its ability to function effectively.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. He attempted to differentiate the CPSC's role from other agencies where the Supreme Court had previously allowed firings to proceed. A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting that the Constitution grants the president the authority to fire board members "without cause."

The administration has consistently argued that all these agencies fall under the control of the president as the head of the executive branch. However, Judge Maddox, a nominee of President Biden, pointed out that the functions of the product safety commission can be challenging to classify as purely executive.

This ongoing legal battle over the president's power to fire officials could eventually lead the court to reconsider a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor. In that 1935 case, the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. This decision established an era of powerful independent federal agencies responsible for regulating various aspects of American life, including labor relations, employment discrimination, and airwaves.

However, conservative legal scholars have long criticized Humphrey’s Executor, arguing that the modern administrative state misinterprets the Constitution by allowing such agencies to operate independently of presidential oversight. Justice Kagan suggested that the court has already "all but overturned" Humphrey’s Executor.

Other cases involving the removal of officials are currently making their way to the Supreme Court. One such case involves the firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission, the same agency at issue in Humphrey’s Executor. Last week, a federal judge ordered Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner, to be reinstated. She returned to work but was soon sidelined again after an appeals court temporarily blocked the judge's order.

The CPSC was established in 1972 and consists of five members who must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms to ensure that each president has the opportunity to influence, but not control, the commission. Attorneys for the fired commissioners argued that the recent terminations could undermine the commission’s independence and its ability to serve the public interest effectively.