WASHINGTON (BRAIN) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a federal judge's ruling reinstating three Consumer Product Safety Commissioners fired by President Trump in May.
The 6-3 decision allows Trump to remove Democratic commissioners Alexander Hoehn-Saric, Mary T. Boyle, and Richard Trumka Jr., who voted on May 8 to block Department of Government Efficiency representatives from entering CPSC headquarters to fire some staff employees. Later that day, the commissioners' terminations were announced via emails.
"I will continue to fight for the continued existence of an independent CPSC," Hoehn-Saric said in a statement released Thursday. "And I hope to finish out my term once this case is decided."
Nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on behalf of the trio in mid-May in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
"The Court's decision does not absolve the remaining two commissioners of their responsibility to the American public," Hoehn-Saric added. "In fact, it raises the stakes on every decision that they make. Over the last six months, while the number of recalls has remained high, the agency has been falling behind in fulfilling our other statutory duties, including issuing safety rules, educating consumers, and providing assistance to consumers and to small businesses that are seeking guidance on compliance with agency mandates."
The Supreme Court's majority cited its ruling allowing Trump to fire National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox without cause in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and the head of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
"The stay we issued in Wilcox reflected '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,'" the Court's majority wrote. "The same is true on the facts presented here, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect."
Justice Elena Kagan, writing on behalf of fellow justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the ruling guts the independence of an agency created by Congress.
"In Congress' view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single president."
In June, Judge Matthew J. Maddox ruled that the commissioners "suffered irreparable harm" by not being able to perform their roles for the past month. During that time, the remaining two commissioners, Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman and Douglas Dziak, released the CPSC's 2026 budget request to Congress that calls for a restructuring of the agency, reducing funding by 10.5% and staffing by 14%.
In the executive summary of the budget priorities, the CPSC asks Congress to approve President Trump's 2026 federal budget proposal to reorganize and transfer its functions to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Assistant Secretary for Consumer Product Safety (ASCPS) would replace the CPSC and be responsible for public safety. The HHS is led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Senators 'have serious concerns'
Also, during the commissioners' absence, Feldman and Dziak withdrew the previously approved by a 3-2 vote the e-bike and lithium-ion battery testing standards proposal from public comment. On July 16, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) demanded documents and information from Feldman and Federal Register Director Oliver Potts about the unexplained removal of the proposed safety rule from the register.
"Although the Consumer Product Safety Commission approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish a safety standard for lithium-ion batteries, your office has failed to publish the NPR as directed by the CPSC without any explanation," the senators wrote in a letter to Potts. "We have serious concerns about who directed you to withdraw the NPR (Notices of Proposed Rulemaking) and whether these actions violate federal law."
Under the Federal Register Act and its implementing regulations, the director is responsible for publishing regulations and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking.
Hoehn-Saric addressed the withdrawal.
"In June, the Federal Register was prohibited from publishing a proposed rule on lithium-ion battery safety. In the coming weeks, I will be looking to see if my two remaining colleagues take the steps necessary toward establishing a mandatory standard for these products. Such a standard is necessary in order for the CPSC to stop hazardous batteries from entering this country and putting Americans' lives at risk."
On Monday, the National Consumers League (NCL), Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, and 118 other stakeholders sent a letter to congressional leaders asking Congress to reassure them that the CPSC has the appropriate tools, resources, and personnel to protect public safety.
"Product safety will likely be deprioritized," the letter said in part. "HHS already has a vast mission, which includes food and drug regulation, communicable disease prevention, public health emergency preparation and response, medical research, and administration of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program."
On Wednesday, the NCL criticized the Court's decision.
"This is a sad day for product safety and the rule of law in the United States," said Daniel Greene, the NCL's senior director of consumer protection and product safety. "Congress deliberately established an independent, nonpartisan agency with exclusive authority over the safety of consumer products. This independence ensures that the CPSC is mission-driven, guided by experts and science, and insulated from changing political tides. In allowing this illegal firing to stand, the Court's stay is inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the law."
Public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation emailed BRAIN supporting the Court's ruling. The foundation bills itself as a defender of Americans' liberties when threatened "by government overreach and abuse."
"We applaud the Supreme Court's decision which confirms that the President is in fact the head of the Executive Branch. For too long, independent agencies have acted as a fourth branch of government — free from constitutional constraints. (Wednesday's) ruling helps ensure that leaders of the government's alphabet soup agencies remain accountable to the President. Pacific Legal Foundation will continue its efforts to keep the government's three branches in their proper lanes."
