President Donald Trump was present at a meeting with the Fraternal Order of Police held in the State Dining Room of the White House on Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
A federal court in Maryland directed the Trump administration on Thursday to restore three members from the Biden era to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
In a 31-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Maddox, appointed by Joe Biden, granted a permanent injunction after deciding on competing motions for summary judgment.
The court’s order will remain in effect until the case concludes at the district court level or is stayed by an intervening court.
“Each Plaintiff, having been duly appointed to serve as a CPSC Commissioner and not lawfully removed from that position, ‘has a clear and indisputable right to’ to their office, and Defendants have a ‘clear’ and ‘official’ duty to provide each Plaintiff access to the resources necessary and available for each Plaintiff to perform their official duties,” the opinion reads.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
The issue before the court was whether or not President Donald Trump, by way of individuals “purporting to speak” on his behalf, had the authority to fire the trio – as the government did in early May, according to the 7-page complaint filed late last month.
“No explanation was offered, including no suggestion that any Plaintiff had engaged in any neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,” the lawsuit filed by Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. reads.
In no uncertain terms, Maddox determined the 45th and 47th president lacks the authority to fire the plaintiffs in such a fashion.
“[T]he Court finds no constitutional defect in the statutory restriction on Plaintiffs’ removal and that Plaintiffs’ purported removal from office was unlawful,” the opinion reads.
Readers may recall that this very issue made its way through several different cases in the D.C. District Court system. The administration similarly moved to fire members of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Special Counsel, and National Labor Relations Board. But the results have been mixed.
In each instance, the plaintiffs won reprieves from district courts — temporarily maintaining their jobs. On appeal, two of them won – resulting in the U.S. Supreme Court staying those wins. One employee lost on appeal and then dropped his reinstatement bid.
Effectively, the Trump administration has come away from such scrapes with a 3-0 record – though for two distinct reasons. But, the merits have yet to be truly decided. And, in each case, the same 1935 Supreme Court case has proven both instructive and decisive.
The case in question, Humphrey’s Executor, stands for the idea that Congress intended to keep “quasi judicial and quasi legislative” agencies largely insulated from the whims of the president.
And here, the court again found the case controlling.
The plaintiffs argued their jobs were safe until statutorily-defined periods – a form of tenure – based on when they were appointed.
The government, for their part, argued those statutory tenure protection are invalid because they pose too much of an impediment to the executive branch’s removal power under Article II of the Constitution.
“Although this case presents no material factual disputes, the contested legal issue central to this case is whether Plaintiffs’ statutory tenure protection in 15 U.S.C. § 2053(a) infringes upon the President’s Article II removal power,” the opinion continues. “This Court holds that § 2053(a) is not inconsistent with Article II, agreeing with several other courts that statutory tenure protection for CPSC Commissioners is constitutionally justified by the Humphrey’s Executor exception to the President’s removal power.”
To that end, the judge found the protections mean each of the three fired members must be reinstated – reasoning that this would be the only equitable way to solve the problem.
The judge offered a public policy rationale, at length:
The CPSC plays a vital, congressionally prescribed role in “protect[ing] the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products[,] . . . assist[ing] consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products[,]” and “develop[ing] uniform safety standards for consumer products[,]” among other purposes. Depriving this five-member Commission of three of its sitting members threatens severe impairment of its ability to fulfill its statutory mandates and advance the public’s interest in safe consumer products. This hardship and threat to public safety significantly outweighs any hardship Defendants might suffer from Plaintiffs’ participation on the CPSC.
The court, in an effort to bolster its ruling, noted that while the plaintiffs were being granted the relief they sought, the government was also being directly ordered to comply via mandamus – when a court forces another government entity to do what it says.
“The Court finds that the wrongful removal of a presidentially appointed Commissioner of an independent federal agency presents an ‘extraordinary’ situation involving interference with the performance of official duties and, therefore, is suited for mandamus relief,” Maddox warned.
In a separate order, the court clarified the government must grant the plaintiffs access to agency resources, provide back-pay and benefits to the plaintiffs and their staffs, and generally cannot give effect to the “purported termination.” The order further enjoins several officials “from taking any action to effectuate Plaintiffs’ unlawful terminations.”
