Supreme Court Upholds Trump Administration's Dismissal of CPSC Commissioners
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling allows the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, challenging previous legal precedents.
Subscribe to unlock this story
We really don't like cutting you off, but you've reached your monthly limit. At just $5/month, subscriptions are how we keep this project going. Start your free 7-day trial today!
Get StartedHave an account? Sign in
Overview
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration's authority to dismiss three Democratic members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
- This ruling overturned a U.S. District Judge's decision that had found the dismissals unlawful and mandated the reinstatement of the commissioners.
- The Trump administration justified the removals by asserting that all agencies are under the President's control as the head of the executive branch.
- The CPSC, established in 1972, is responsible for protecting consumers from defective products, with commissioners serving staggered seven-year terms.
- This decision may prompt a reevaluation of the 90-year-old Humphrey’s Executor ruling, which has historically limited presidential power over independent agencies.
Report issue
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
Center-leaning sources collectively frame the supreme court's decision as a significant challenge to the independence of federal agencies and a departure from established legal precedent. they emphasize the strong dissents from liberal justices and highlight the consumer product safety commission's design to be free from political pressure, underscoring the implications for checks and balances.
"The three dissenters object to resolving these sorts of issues on the emergency docket, but did not want to accelerate the Court's resolution of the underlying question."
Reason"The court's action, while temporary, presents a direct challenge to Humphrey's Executor, the longstanding Supreme Court precedent, which restricts the president's power to remove agency officials at will."
NPR"The Supreme Court's order blocks the district judge's decision that reinstated the commissioners to their roles."
CBS News"The ruling was made over the objections of the court’s three liberal justices."
USA TODAY"The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed President Donald Trump to fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency set up by Congress to be independent of political pressures."
NBC News"The fight over the president’s power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor."
Associated Press"The decision followed one in May allowing the Trump administration to fire Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board while their challenges work their way through the court system."
Roll CallArticles (16)
Center (7)
FAQ
The ruling challenged the 90-year-old Humphrey’s Executor precedent, which historically limited presidential power over independent agencies by restricting arbitrary removal of commissioners.
The Trump administration justified the removals by asserting that the President, as head of the executive branch, has the authority to control federal agencies, including the removal of commissioners.
The CPSC, established in 1972, is an independent agency responsible for protecting consumers by regulating product safety, with commissioners serving staggered seven-year terms to maintain bipartisan oversight.
The fired commissioners vowed to fight the dismissals in court, consumer protection groups and lawmakers expressed concern about dismantling the CPSC, and a federal judge previously ruled the firings unlawful and ordered reinstatement before the Supreme Court's override.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration, with the three liberal justices dissenting on grounds that allowing removal based on party affiliation undermines agency independence and bipartisanship.
History
- 2M
13 articles