Trump urges Supreme Court to let him fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Trump dismissed the three Joe Biden-appointees in May, but a federal district court last month ordered their reinstatement. The administration is asking the Supreme Court to pause the lower court order, a move that would take the three commissioners off the board again.
The appeal is the latest to reach the high court dealing with the administration's power to fire board members at agencies Congress set up to have independence from the whims of the White House. The court has been receptive to Trump's arguments in earlier cases, giving his administration more control over those agencies – at least in the short term.
The litigation around the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has 'thrown the agency into chaos,' the Trump administration told the Supreme Court and has 'put agency staff in the untenable position of deciding which commissioners' directives to follow.'
The agency is charged with protecting consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls and taking other enforcement steps.
Trump has had considerable success with similar claims over independent agencies at the Supreme Court. In May, the court, in an unsigned opinion, allowed Trump to fire officials at two independent federal labor agencies that enforce worker protections. The Department of Justice heavily cited that outcome in its appeal to the high court Wednesday.
'Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the president,' the court wrote in its opinion at the time, 'he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.'
Writing for the dissenting justices, Justice Elena Kagan said the majority had effectively overruled a decades-old Supreme Court case, Humphrey's Executor v. US, that allowed Congress to require presidents to show cause – such as malfeasance – before dismissing board members overseeing independent agencies.
In the Consumer Product Safety Commission case now pending, the Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump's appeal – despite the outcome in the earlier case. In a concurring opinion, US Circuit Judge James Wynn noted that the Supreme Court had not yet technically overturned Humphrey's Executor.
'That precedent remains binding on this court unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it,' wrote Wynn, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama.
In its filing Wednesday, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to issue an immediate 'administrative stay' that would let Trump keep the members off the board for a few days while the court considers the case. The board members fired back rapidly with a brief Wednesday rejecting the need for that outcome.
Because the board members are 'currently serving and have been since June 13,' they told the court, 'an administrative stay would disrupt the status quo.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
7 minutes ago
- Politico
Kilmar Abrego Garcia describes ‘severe beatings' and ‘psychological torture' in Salvadoran prison
The Salvadoran prison where Abrego was initially housed, known as the Anti-Terrorism Confinement Center or by its Spanish-language acronym CECOT, is reputed to be rife with gang violence and human rights abuses. But there are few first-hand accounts of treatment there because El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, has vowed that its prisoners will never be released. Abrego's account of physical and psychological torture stands in stark contrast to the portrayal by the Trump administration and Bukele, who posted a photo of what he claimed was Abrego having 'margaritas' with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), after the senator secured a meeting with Abrego in April. (Van Hollen has since said the margaritas were staged by Salvadoran officials). The Trump administration told a federal judge in May, after Abrego had been moved out of CECOT to another prison, that he was 'in good health' and had 'gained weight.' But Abrego said he lost 31 pounds at CECOT in his first two weeks there. And he reported witnessing and suffering harrowing violence and abuse. Abrego's lawyers presented his account in a 40-page proposed amendment to a lawsuit over his deportation. Spokespeople for the White House and for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Abrego's new claims. Abrego allegedly entered the U.S. illegally around 2011 and had lived in Maryland for more than a decade when the Trump administration deported him. The deportation violated a 2019 order from an immigration judge who barred the U.S. from sending Abrego to El Salvador because he faced a danger of gang violence there. The Supreme Court noted that the deportation was 'illegal' after a Justice Department lawyer admitted that the deportation had been a mistake. 'Whoever enters here doesn't leave' In the new court filing, Abrego described being the first person off an airplane in El Salvador after the Trump administration flew him there with more than 200 men on March 15. He recalled bright lights illuminating the airfield and cameras trained on him while officials forcefully guided him — shackled in chains — to a bus. The next day, Bukele triumphantly circulated cinematically edited videos of the deportees being handed over to Salvadoran authorities.
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Iran nuclear effort set back 1 to 2 years by bombings, Pentagon says
'What we've seen, almost, in fact, just universally among our allies, is them congratulating the United States, the president, the secretary of defense, on that bold operation, and the idea that American action in Iran has set the conditions for global stability,' he said. Advertisement Iran's president, meanwhile, has enacted a law to suspend cooperation with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, Iranian state media reported Wednesday, in a move that will shut out international inspectors from overseeing the country's contested nuclear program. American B-2 bombers hit two Iranian nuclear sites with massive 'bunker buster' bombs last month, as Trump joined Israel's bombing campaign in Iran. The Air Force dropped 12 of the massive GBU-57 bombs on the Fordo nuclear site and two on the nuclear site at Natanz. Trump has since declared a ceasefire and said that he was pursuing diplomacy with Tehran. The issue of how far back the American and Israeli bombing campaign put the Iran nuclear program became almost an instant matter of contention, after Trump announced in the immediate aftermath of the American strikes that the bombs had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program. Advertisement Intelligence assessments since then, including ones by the Pentagon and the American intelligence community, have been more cautious. A preliminary assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency that was widely reported on last week estimated that the strikes set back the Iranian nuclear program by only a few months. The CIA director said later in the week that the Iranian program had been severely damaged, and the U.S. intelligence agencies were continuing to assess the strike. Parnell was not presenting a formal Defense Department battle damage assessment Wednesday. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Secretary last week echoed Trump's language, and said, according to a White House statement, that 'based on everything we have seen -- and I've seen it all -- our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' But Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has used more careful language, saying that 'initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.' This article originally appeared in
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Chip Roy says Senate's Medicaid cuts ‘a bit better' than expected
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said during a recent interview that Medicaid cuts in the Senate-passed 'big, beautiful bill' are a 'bit better' than what he expected, but added that he still has 'concerns.' 'I will note that I have now gotten a little bit more information on some of the Medicaid stuff that I feel like it's a little bit better than I originally anticipated, but I still have concerns,' Roy said during his Wednesday appearance on Fox News's 'The Will Cain Show.' 'I voted against the rule in the committee because I wasn't at a place where I felt like we should advance the product last night,' the Texas Republican told host Will Cain. 'I'm still in that place, right? I'm still looking through the bill. We got it yesterday. 'I asked every witness at the panel in the Rules Committee yesterday, if they'd read the bill, who were testifying on the bill and they haven't read it, Will. This is no way to do things, so I'm trying to go through the bill and understand it,' Roy said. The Senate passed the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act on Tuesday after Vice President Vance cast the tiebreaking vote, delivering a huge legislative win for President Trump. The Senate bill would mark the biggest cuts to Medicaid. Nearly 12 million low-income Americans would lose health insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office projected. The legislation is now on the House side, where some moderate GOP members have expressed worry about the cuts to the social safety net. Roy, who called some of the last-minute changes senators made to the legislation before passing the package a 'travesty,' has previously voiced concerns about the spending levels within Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' On Wednesday, Roy told Cain he still has 'massive observations about the green new scam subsidies, and the overall spending level — so we're trying to work through those to see where we can go from here.'
