President Donald Trump’s legal team has petitioned the Supreme Court to permit his removal of three commissioners from the independent Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), challenging a lower court’s decision that blocked the terminations as unlawful.
The request, submitted by Solicitor General D. John Sauer on Wednesday, follows a recent ruling by a federal judge who determined that Trump’s decision to fire the commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. — violated federal law and reinstated them to their posts.
The three officials were appointed by former President Joe Biden to seven-year terms on the five-member commission. Boyle’s term was scheduled to end in October, Hoehn-Saric’s in 2027, and Trumka’s in 2028. The CPSC is responsible for establishing consumer product safety standards, issuing recalls, and initiating civil litigation against companies.
In May, the commissioners were informed that their appointments had been terminated with immediate effect. However, under federal law, members of the CPSC can only be removed for “neglect of duty or malfeasance,” not at will. Congress designed these removal restrictions to safeguard the independence of regulatory agencies from political influence. Trump has challenged these protections through multiple removals from independent federal bodies.
After their dismissals, the commissioners filed a lawsuit in Maryland, where the CPSC is headquartered, seeking to be reinstated. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox ruled in their favor, allowing them to return to their roles.
“Depriving this five-member commission of three of its sitting members threatens severe impairment of its ability to fulfill its statutory mandates and advance the public’s interest in safe consumer products,” Maddox wrote. “This hardship and threat to public safety significantly outweighs any hardship defendants might suffer from plaintiffs’ participation on the CPSC.”
An appeals panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously upheld the district court’s decision, denying Trump’s request to remove the commissioners.
“The commissioners,” Judge James Wynn wrote, “were appointed to serve fixed terms with statutory protections designed to preserve the commission’s independence and partisan balance. Permitting their unlawful removal would thwart that purpose and deprive the public of the commission’s full expertise and oversight. And because the attempted removals were unlawful, the Plaintiff-Commissioners never ceased to lawfully occupy their offices.”
Sauer’s emergency appeal marks the third time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene on presidential removal powers. The administration maintains that the president holds broad authority to dismiss executive officers at will.
In May, the Court sided with Trump in a separate case involving two members of independent labor boards, allowing their removal while litigation continued. That decision, issued over the dissent of the three liberal justices, stated:
“[The ruling] reflects our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”
Sauer argued that the precedent set by the Court in May should have precluded the district court from reinstating the CPSC commissioners. He contended that the ruling effectively shifts control of the commission from Trump to Biden appointees.
“That plain-as-day affront to the President’s fundamental Article II powers warrants intervention now,” he wrote.
He requested that the Supreme Court issue an immediate administrative stay to allow more time for consideration of the emergency appeal. Attorneys for the commissioners opposed the urgent request, noting that they have resumed their duties for nearly three weeks without disruption.
They argued that the Trump administration had failed to demonstrate any concrete harm resulting from the commissioners continuing in their roles while the case proceeds.
