In a landmark decision this Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump in a contentious legal battle over the firing rights of federal appointees, enabling him to terminate three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The justices [issued a stay](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a11_2cp3.pdf) on a lower court’s injunction that had previously blocked Trump's move to dismiss commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr.

Trump’s decision to remove these commissioners in May was part of a broader initiative aimed at downsizing the federal government. The action was initially halted by a Maryland federal judge after the commissioners [challenged their termination](https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/ECF-1-Complaint-3.pdf), claiming protection under federal law which stipulates that such officials can only be dismissed for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."

The Supreme Court's decision referenced its earlier ruling in [Trump v. Wilcox](f), which allowed for similar removals within the National Labor Relations Board, suggesting a continuity in its approach toward presidential power over independent agencies. The CPSC, established in 1972, is responsible for setting safety standards for a wide range of consumer products, from children's toys to household appliances. Traditionally, the independence of the CPSC has been safeguarded by rules that limit the removal of commissioners strictly to cases of misconduct or neglect.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, expressed that the Supreme Court should have granted a full review of the case rather than merely issuing a stay, pointing to the significant constitutional concerns involved.

On the other hand, Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the majority for undermining the historical precedent set by [Humphrey's Executor v. United States](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/602/), a 1935 case affirming Congress's power to establish independent regulatory agencies. Kagan’s dissent warns of the implications of the court's decision, stating, “Once again, this Court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress."

This ruling marks a significant expansion of presidential authority over the appointment and removal of officials within independent federal agencies, following a trend in similar decisions by the current Supreme Court. Critics of the decision argue that it could lead to increased political interference in the operations of agencies like the CPSC, which are meant to function with nonpartisan objectivity.

For more details on the ruling, visit the [JURIST report](https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/07/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-fire-consumer-safety-commissioners/).