As legal challenges continue regarding whether the President of the United States can terminate confirmed commissioners at a variety of “independent” agencies without cause, eyes turn to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission). In short, after challenging their firing by President Trump in court, the three Democratic CPSC commissioners are now back at their desks. On June 13, 2025, Judge Matthew Maddox of the Maryland District Court ruled that the firing violated federal law and ordered the commissioners’ immediate reinstatement. Siding with the plaintiffs, Judge Maddox held that “President Donald J. Trump’s purported termination of Plaintiffs Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. from their roles as Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission … is ultra vires, contrary to law, and without legal effect.” 

Having been restored to their positions at the CPSC, Commissioners Boyle, Hoehn-Saric, and Trumka have responded to actions taken by their Republican colleagues, Acting Chair Peter Feldman and Commissioner Douglas Dziak, during their absence. At the outset, they contend that because their firings were invalid, quorum requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 2053(d) were not met, and, therefore, any votes taken since their termination are invalid. For example, a June 17, 2025, “Time Critical Ballot” overturned the May 13, 2025, vote to withdraw a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing a new safety standard for lithium-ion batteries in e-mobility devices, which we wrote about here and here. The three reinstated commissioners also voted to terminate “staff who have been hired, detailed, or otherwise placed at CPSC for the express purpose of carrying out Implementing The President’s ‘Department Of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative Executive Order without majority approval by the full Commission.” Acting Chair Feldman and Commissioner Dziak abstained.

The Administration promptly appealed the District Court’s decision to the Fourth Circuit and then asked both the Fourth Circuit and the District Court to pause the District Court’s order reinstating the three Democratic commissioners, pending the appeal. Unsurprisingly, the reinstated commissioners opposed the stay request. On June 23, 2025, Judge Maddox denied (Pacer subscription required) the motion before him, while the motion for a stay before the Fourth Circuit is now fully briefed and ripe for a decision.

Both parties cited the May 22, 2025, emergency order issued by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Wilcox in support of their position. In Wilcox, the Supreme Court determined that a stay of a preliminary injunction reinstating terminated federal officers (in that case, involving officials of the National Labor Relations Board) was “appropriate to avoid the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation.” Unlike the preliminary posture of that case, however, the District Court in the present CPSC case issued a permanent injunction reinstating the commissioners. Thus, according to Judge Maddox, the risk of disruption from “repeated removal and reinstatement” is “no longer a factor.” As the dissenting Justices in Wilcox recognized, the emergency order in that case calls into serious doubt the continued validity of a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent, Humphry’s Executor v. U.S., which generally held that Congress has power to create independent agencies, such as the CPSC, and forbids the Executive to remove independent agency members except for cause.

The central legal question regarding the President’s authority under the Constitution to terminate officers of federal agencies with or without cause is expected to eventually land before the Supreme Court as this and other challenges to federal agency terminations continue. While the future of Humphry’s Executor remains uncertain, all eyes are now on the Fourth Circuit to see whether the three CPSC Democratic commissioners will remain in their positions.