The Supreme Court recently approved the removal of three Democratic members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a decision that has sparked significant debate regarding presidential authority over independent agencies. This action followed an emergency appeal by the Justice Department and highlights ongoing tensions between the branches of government over the limits of executive power.
The decision aligns with previous rulings allowing President Donald Trump to dismiss board members of independent agencies. The Justice Department contended that since the CPSC is under the executive branch, Trump could remove commissioners without cause, a move he executed in May. Interestingly, this step overlooked a federal law that limits such removals to instances of “neglect of duty or malfeasance.”
The court issued a brief, unsigned explanation indicating that this situation mirrors past cases where Trump was permitted to discharge board members from other independent agencies. However, the decision was not unanimous. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, warning that this could lead to a “permanent transfer of authority” from one government branch to another.
Originally created in 1972, the CPSC consists of five members who must represent a partisan balance, with no more than three members from the president’s party. They serve staggered terms to ensure the president can influence, but not dominate, the commission. The recently dismissed commissioners were serving seven-year terms after being appointed by President Joe Biden.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, who previously ruled the dismissals unlawful, attempted to differentiate the CPSC’s role from other agencies that faced similar Supreme Court decisions. A month earlier, the court’s conservative majority had allowed the dismissal of members from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting presidential authority to fire board members “without cause.”
This ongoing legal battle could prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which established that presidents cannot remove independent board members without cause. This precedent has underpinned the existence of powerful independent federal agencies, a concept that some conservative legal theorists have long opposed. Kagan noted that the court has “all but overturned Humphrey’s Executor.”
The case of Rebecca Slaughter, a Federal Trade Commission member recently reinstated by a federal judge, but sidelined again after an appeals court intervention, further illustrates the contentious nature of this issue.
For more information, visit the Supreme Court or learn more about the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
