Background
On June 23, 2025, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion by President Donald J. Trump and other officials (“Defendants”) to stay his order reinstating three Democratic CPSC Commissioners: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. (the “Commissioners”). The motion, filed on June 16, 2025, sought to pause the court’s injunction, prohibiting any action to effectuate the Commissioners’ removal, while the case is appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Prior to the district court’s decision, Defendants filed an emergency motion for a stay with the Fourth Circuit on June 17, 2025, which was denied on July 1, 2025. The next day, the Trump Administration submitted an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal.
For background on the Commissioners’ lawsuit following their removal, see our earlier post: Update: Democratic Commissioners File Lawsuit Following Trump’s Firing.
Key Arguments
Defendants argued for a stay, claiming a strong likelihood of success based on the President’s executive removal powers and citing similar precedents. They warned of irreparable harm and instability from repeated removal and reinstatement of officials. Additionally, they asserted that the public interest favored a stay to maintain stability in the executive branch.
In opposition, the Commissioners argued that Defendants were unlikely to succeed on appeal, as the removals were already deemed unlawful. They argued that the President’s removal power is limited by statutory provisions and that a stay would harm both the Commissioners and the public by disrupting the CPSC’s consumer safety mission.
District Court’s Denial of Motion to Stay
Judge Maddox denied the motion to stay, finding Defendants failed to satisfy any of the four factors required for such relief:
- Likelihood of Success on the Merits: Defendants had not presented any new evidence or arguments to challenge the district court’s prior ruling that the Commissioner’s removal was unlawful.
- Irreparable Injury: Defendants’ claims of irreparable harm were based on policy differences and procedural issues, lacking evidence of actual harm.
- Substantial Injury to Other Parties: A stay would substantially harm the Commissioners, by depriving them of the ability to serve their statutorily limited terms.
- Public Interest: The CPSC’s consumer safety mission and the Commissioner’s expertise favor allowing them to continue their roles.
Fourth Circuit’s Denial of Emergency Stay
Prior to the district court’s ruling, Defendants sought emergency relief from the Fourth Circuit, filing motions for both an administrative stay and a stay of the district court’s judgment pending appeal. On July 1, 2025, the Fourth Circuit denied both requests, leaving the district court’s order in effect while the appeal proceeds. In a concurring opinion, Judge James Andrew Wynn stated that Congress lawfully constrained the President’s removal authority, that no court has found this constraint unconstitutional, and the district court was correct in refusing to allow the President to disregard these limits.
Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Intervention
After the Fourth Circuit’s denial, the Trump Administration filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court the following day, seeking an administrative stay and a stay of the district court’s judgment pending appeal. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the application, but its decision could again impact the CPSC’s leadership and provide further guidance on the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies.
What’s Next?
With both the district court and the Fourth Circuit having denied stays, all eyes now turn to the Supreme Court.The outcome of the government’s application could have significant implications for the President’s removal powers and the statutory protections afforded to agency commissioners.
[View source.]
