Trump turns to Supreme Court in fight to oust Biden-era consumer safety officials
The emergency appeal asks the High Court to allow the Trump administration to fire three members of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a five-member independent regulatory board that sets standards and oversees safety for thousands of consumer products. The appeal comes after the Supreme Court, in May, granted a separate emergency appeal request from the Trump administration pertaining to the firing of two Biden-appointed agency officials from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
"It's outrageous that we must once again seek Supreme Court intervention because rogue leftist judges in lower courts continue to defy the high court's clear rulings," said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields.
Supreme Court Allows Termination Of Independent Agency Board Members For Now
"The Supreme Court decisively upheld the president's constitutional authority to fire and remove executive officers exercising his power, yet this ongoing assault by activist judges undermines that victory," he continued. "President Trump remains committed to fulfilling the American people's mandate by effectively leading the executive branch, despite these relentless obstructions."
Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. were appointed to serve seven-year terms on the independent government agency by former President Joe Biden. Their positions have historically been protected from retribution, as they can only be terminated for neglect or malfeasance.
Read On The Fox News App
After Trump attempted to fire the three Democratic regulators, they sued, arguing the president sought to remove them without due cause. Eventually, a federal judge in Maryland agreed with them, and this week an appeals court upheld that ruling.
However, according to the emergency appeal from the Trump administration, submitted to the High Court on Wednesday morning, the three regulators in question have shown "hostility to the President's agenda" and taken actions that have "thrown the agency into chaos."
Obama-appointed Judge Strikes Down Trump Order Preventing Asylum Requests, Protections For Illegal Immigrants
The emergency appeal to the Supreme Court added that "none of this should be possible" after the High Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration's decision to fire two executive branch labor relations officials.
"None of this should be possible after Wilcox, which squarely controls this case. Like the NLRB and MSPB in Wilcox, the CPSC exercises 'considerable executive power,' 145 S. Ct. at 1415—for instance, by issuing rules, adjudicating administrative proceedings, issuing subpoenas, bringing enforcement suits seeking civil penalties, and (with the concurrence of the Attorney General) even prosecuting criminal cases," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
The request, according to Politico, will go to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is in charge of emergency appeals stemming from the appeals court that upheld the previous Maryland court ruling blocking the Trump administration's firings.Original article source: Trump turns to Supreme Court in fight to oust Biden-era consumer safety officials
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
37 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Joe Rogan Feels Trump Betrayed Him on Immigration
Joe Rogan, one of the most influential voices in American media, is turning on Donald Trump. And the reason cuts deep: immigration raids. Rogan, who endorsed Trump just hours before the 2024 presidential election, now says he was misled by the man he helped boost into office. The podcaster and UFC commentator, known for giving a platform to anti-cancel culture figures and free speech advocates, is now accusing Trump of betraying the very values he campaigned on. 'We were told there would be…,' Rogan began during a July 2 episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, before trailing off and recalibrating. 'There's two things that are insane. One is the targeting of migrant workers, not cartel members, not gang members, not drug dealers, just construction workers showing up at construction sites, raiding them. Gardeners. Like, really?' His guest, Amjad Masad, the Palestinian founder and CEO of the coding platform Replit, agreed. The two were discussing the Trump administration's crackdown on immigrants, especially in the context of escalating tensions over Gaza and political speech on U.S. campuses. Masad brought up recent reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) targeting Palestinian students and immigrants on flimsy pretenses. 'Did you see the video of the Turkish student at Tufts University who wrote an essay?' he asked. Rogan responded, incredulous: 'It was just critical of Israel, right? And that's enough to get you kicked out of the country?' The two were referencing growing concern that lawful political speech, especially criticism of Israel, is increasingly being used as grounds for visa cancellations and deportations under Trump's revived immigration policy. Back on November 4, 2024, Rogan endorsed Trump on social media, just before the election. It was a powerful signal to his massive base of male followers. 'The great and powerful @elonmusk. If it wasn't for him we'd be fucked,' Rogan wrote at the time. 'He makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you'll hear, and I agree with him every step of the way. For the record, yes, that's an endorsement of Trump.' The post racked up more than 50 million views. But less than a year later, Rogan seems to be reconsidering. The great and powerful @ it wasn't for him we'd be fucked. He makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you'll hear, and I agree with him every step of the the record, yes, that's an endorsement of the podcast — Joe Rogan (@joerogan) November 5, 2024While he made clear he would never vote for Kamala Harris, Rogan now feels duped. The immigration policy he thought would focus on violent criminals has instead become a broader crackdown on immigrant communities, including legal residents, students, and workers. During the campaign, Trump vowed mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, but insisted the focus would be on criminals and gang members. His rallies featured mugshots of alleged MS-13 members and claims that his plan would 'clean up the streets.' But now that he's back in the White House, reality looks different. According to recent court filings and ICE data, many of the people being arrested or deported have no criminal records at all. That discrepancy is what's pushing Rogan to speak out. He's built his brand around authenticity and free speech. Trump's current approach, he suggests, smells more like authoritarianism than policy. 'Fascism is the response almost always to communism,' Rogan said on the same podcast, quoting ANthony Rispo, a student of psychology and neuroscience at Columbia University. 'What we experience in this country is this continual overcorrection. Overcorrection to the left, then overcorrection to the right, to counter that.' In other words, Rogan is wondering if Trump's policies are an overcorrection too far, and if they resemble fascism more than freedom. Thanks @joerogan for shouting me out on @joeroganhq !! — Anthony Rispo (@anthony_rispo) July 3, 2025Rogan's disillusionment mirrors that of Elon Musk, another former Trump ally. Musk, who headed the now-infamous Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has become one of Trump's fiercest critics since Congress passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' a legislation that slashed EV subsidies, immigration protections, and environmental incentives. Musk is now threatening to start a third political party. And while Trump can afford to ignore the Tesla CEO's rebellion, he can't easily brush off Joe Rogan. Why? Because they share the same audience: disaffected men, anti-establishment voters, young libertarians, and people tired of traditional politics. If that group is forced to choose between Trump and Rogan, the outcome could significantly impact the 2026 midterm elections and future political landscapes.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Hard to reap the rewards Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Social net setbacks Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Some unhappy Republicans Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. "The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.'
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
North Carolina governor vetoes Republican-led anti DEI and trans legislation
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein has vetoed four controversial bills that target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and transgender rights, setting up a political clash with the Republican-led General Assembly. Stein, a Democrat, blasted the three DEI-focused bills as being "mean-spirited" that would "marginalize vulnerable people" and took aim at Republicans who failed to pass a fiscal budget for the year that just began. The DEI bills ought to ban DEI training, hiring practices and staff positions in state and local governments as well as outlawing the use of state funds for DEI programming. The legislation would have imposed civil penalties on workers who violate the rules. No Democrats supported the three DEI bills. "At a time when teachers, law enforcement, and state employees need pay raises, and people need shorter lines at the DMV, the legislature failed to pass a budget and, instead, wants to distract us by stoking culture wars that further divide us," Stein said in a statement. "These mean-spirited bills would marginalize vulnerable people and also undermine the quality of public services and public education. Therefore, I am vetoing them. I stand ready to work with the legislature when it gets serious about protecting people and addressing North Carolinians' pressing concerns." The measures cutting or eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in state and local governments, K-12 public schools and the university system have been a major priority for GOP lawmakers. They argue the programs targeted have overemphasized identity to the detriment of merit and societal unity. The transgender bill began as a bipartisan measure to curb sexual exploitation by enforcing age verification and consent rules for pornography websites. But lawmakers later added controversial provisions, including a ban on state-funded gender-affirming procedures for prisoners. It also affirms the recognition of two sexes and requires the state to officially attach a transgender person's new birth certificate to their old one if they change their sex assigned at birth. Stein said in a veto message that he strongly supported the anti-sexual exploitation provisions in the bill, but the final measure went too far. "My faith teaches me that we are all children of God no matter our differences and that it is wrong to target vulnerable people, as this bill does," he added. One Democrat backed the fourth bill before Stein vetoed it. All four bills now return to the General Assembly, which could reconvene later this month to attempt veto overrides. Republicans are one vote short of a veto-proof supermajority in the House. The vetoes bring Stein's total to 11 since taking office in January — all within the past two weeks. Stein was previously North Carolina's attorney general since 2017 after serving in the state Senate from 2009 to 2016. The progressive attorney and politician campaigned on a platform of lowering the cost of housing, increasing job creation, expanding access to abortion and improving education.
