Capping off two months of legal drama, the Supreme Court has stayed the ruling of U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Maddox, which ordered the immediate reinstatement of the three U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) commissioners whom President Trump fired in May. This means that the three fired commissioners will not retake their offices while the issue makes its way through the appellate process. This decision marks the culmination of a turbulent period surrounding the commissioners’ removal and the ongoing appeals process.
As we previously reported, President Trump fired Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. in May, asserting executive authority to restructure the agency. The commissioners sued, arguing they can only be removed “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office”—not at presidential discretion.
Judge Maddox ruled in the commissioners’ favor in June, ordering their immediate reinstatement on the basis that the president lacks authority to remove commissioners without cause. After a Fourth Circuit panel declined to stay Judge Maddox’s ruling pending the administration’s appeal, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s emergency application to stay Judge Maddox’s ruling.
According to the majority, “Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases.” Citing a recent similar decision in Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), the majority explained that “the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”
Though not final, the Court’s decision raises further questions about the viability of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that restricts the president’s power to remove agency officials at will. 295 U.S. 602, 626 (1935). Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the conservative majority had “all but overturned Humphrey’s Executor . . . a near-century-old precedent of this Court.” According to the dissent, the majority “effectively expunged Humphrey’s Executor from the U.S. Reports” without even “the scantiest of explanations.”
The Court’s order is not the final word on the case but rather upholds the removal of the commissioners from their positions until the Fourth Circuit (and potentially the Supreme Court) decides the question on the merits. Until then, companies regulated by CPSC should prepare for continued uncertainty. Agency priorities and enforcement approaches may shift depending on the outcome of the case.
[View source.]
