Supreme Court Empowers Trump to Dismiss Three Consumer Safety Democrats
(MENAFN) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in favor of President Donald Trump's authority to dismiss three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the federal body responsible for regulating the safety of products such as toys, batteries, and electronics.
Issuing a brief order without detailed reasoning, the court's decision aligns with a recent ruling that permitted Trump to remove heads of other independent government agencies.
Under existing federal statutes, CPSC commissioners traditionally can only be terminated for cause, such as misconduct. However, Trump proceeded to fire the members without providing justification, and the court has temporarily upheld his prerogative to do so.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, cautioning that this ruling undermines the independence of regulatory agencies intended to operate free from political influence.
“Congress wanted this agency to work without pressure from one party or one president,” Kagan wrote, as reported by media.
The dismissed commissioners—Mary T. Boyle, Richard L. Trumka Jr., and Alexander Hoehn-Saric—asserted their removals were retaliatory, linked to their regulatory decisions including banning hazardous batteries and resisting proposed staffing reductions.
The trio had been reinstated following a lower court's ruling that their firing violated legal protections established by the 1935 Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which shields independent agencies.
The Supreme Court has now temporarily overturned that ruling, with the case expected to return for comprehensive examination in the future.
Since the onset of Trump's second term, the Supreme Court has increasingly sided with expanding presidential control over independent federal agencies.
In an earlier case, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president should exercise authority over officials wielding executive power. Several justices have indicated they may soon reconsider or even overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent altogether.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
