The Supreme Court allows Trump to dismiss members of the CPSC named democratic

The Supreme Court said the president on Wednesday Donald Trump could make the dismissal of three Democratic members of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who were dismissed and then reinstated in their roles on the board of directors – the last confrontation of the courts with high issues focused on the authority of Trump as an authority to delete or control the fate of the independent agency otherwise.

The majority reassured the Trump administration during a 6-3 vote on the emergency order, the last of the current mandate of the Supreme Court. Judges Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissident.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court in early July to suspend the decision of a judge of the lower court in Maryland who fell on the side of the three members of the ousted board of directors, Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. The American district judge Matthew Maddox, a person appointed by Biden, ruled that their redundancies were illegal and ordered restored to their roles.

The American Court of Appeal of the fourth circuit refused to grant the request of the Trump administration to suspend the order, paving the way for the administration to appeal the case before the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal prevents Trump from dismissing federal members of the board of directors, the tests of the Supreme Court are fighting

The judges of the Supreme Court attend the 60th inaugural ceremony of President Trump on January 20, 2025, at the American Capitol. The event took place inside due to the weather. (Ricky Carioti / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

In his emergency file at the Supreme Court, the US Solicitor D. John Sauer underlined the court’s decision in another similar emergency case, in fact, examined by the high court earlier this year, in which the judges agreed to temporarily block the reintegration of the members of the Board of Directors of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Sauer highlighted the factual similarities underlying the two cases and argued that the high court’s emergency decision there “controls this affair”.

The members of the board of directors of the CPSC challenged that the concept in their own file of the Supreme Court – arguing that their CPSC moves “would disrupt the status quo” of an agency dedicated to the protection and safety of consumers.

They also underlined the calendar of their moves, noting that the Trump administration made no attempt to oust them for four months – a delay that they support shows no emergency and sub -values any complaint of “irreparable damage”, a key standard for the actions of the court of emergency.

The judge named Biden wins Trump’s attempt to clean the house of Consumer Safety Agency

The members of the board of directors of the CPSC, Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr., are seen in this image divided to three. Photos via AP News / Getty Images (AP / Getty)

After the American court of appeal of the 4th circuit rejected the government’s request to temporarily freeze Maddox’s order, the government appealed to the Supreme Court.

In his decision, Maddox said that the CPSC Board of Directors’ Board of Directors to Five Terminated Term “did not interfere with” the powers of Trump’s executive branch under Article II of the American Constitution.

The case is the last of a series of challenges focused on Trump’s ability to withdraw members from independent councils. Like NLRB and MSPB decisions, he focuses on the decision of the 90 -year -old Supreme Court known as the name Humphrey’s executorin which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot dismiss independent members of the board of directors without reason.

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump could dismiss the members of the CPSC board of directors on July 23, 2025. (AP photo / J. Scott Applewhite, file)

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

Maddox invoked the uncertainty created by the preliminary posture of the NLRB and MSPB cases, which saw the two complainants withdrawn and reintegrated into their positions several times – which, according to him, was the basis for ordering a more permanent injunctive relief.

“The disturbances could have translated by the instantaneous case if the applicants had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only so that the court later refused to repeat in its final judgment and the applicants of the subject to the revocation,” said Maddox. “The risk of such a disturbance is no longer a factor now that the court grants a permanent injunction as a final judgment.”

In his decision, Maddox said that the CPSC Board of Directors’ Board of Directors to Five Terminated Term “did not interfere with” the powers of Trump’s executive branch under Article II of the American Constitution.