President Trump’s administration has sought Supreme Court intervention to enable the removal of three members of the independent Consumer Product Safety Commission, which they had previously terminated.
The federal judge had ruled that Trump’s removal of the commissioners – Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. – was unlawful and blocked their terminations, which prompted the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
Driving the news: The commissioners, appointed by former President Joe Biden, were targeted for removal despite their set seven-year terms, leading to legal challenges that questioned the president’s removal powers with regard to independent agencies.
- Under federal law, a president can only remove a commissioner for neglect of duty or malfeasance, and Congress has set removal restrictions to insulate independent agencies from political influence.
- The three commissioners filed a lawsuit and were successful in having a federal judge restore them to their positions, with the judge emphasizing the risk to public safety due to the impairment of the commission’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandates.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit unanimously declined to block the district court’s decision, emphasizing the statutory protections designed to preserve the commission’s independence and partisan balance.
The big picture: The administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court is the third involving the president’s power to remove executive officers, with the administration arguing for unrestricted removal powers.
- The administration pointed to a prior decision by the high court regarding the removal of members of federal independent labor boards to support their position that the reinstatement of the Consumer Product Safety Commission members should be foreclosed.
- In response, the solicitor general urged the Supreme Court to issue a brief administrative stay to allow more time to consider the request for emergency relief, while the commissioners’ lawyers opposed swift action, stating that they had been serving in their roles since the district judge ruled in their favor and emphasizing the lack of identified harm from their continued service.