Trump’s Removal Powers Reinforced Amid Legal and Political Debate

The new Supreme Court order follows a similar intervention in May, when the justices approved the removal of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that lower courts had been defying the Court’s guidance, pointing specifically to a federal judge who blocked the dismissal of the three CPSC commissioners. Sauer urged the justices to consider taking the case directly on their regular docket to settle the matter definitively, though the majority declined this approach, instead sending the case back to a lower court.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, expressed concern over this decision, cautioning that failing to address the broader precedent could create “extended uncertainty and confusion” about the scope of presidential removal powers. Kavanaugh suggested that further review in lower courts may not be helpful when the issue involves potentially overturning longstanding Supreme Court decisions.

The dismissed CPSC commissioners were originally appointed by President Biden, and federal law provides them with “for-cause” removal protections, allowing dismissal only for neglect of duty or malfeasance. These safeguards exist to insulate independent agencies from direct political influence by the executive branch.

Represented by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, the commissioners urged the Supreme Court not to intervene, arguing that the government had not justified its request for an extraordinary stay. The group highlighted that the commissioners had been actively serving in their roles, and a stay would disrupt the status quo while litigation proceeds.

As the legal battle continues, the case underscores the ongoing tension between presidential authority and the independence of federal agencies, raising fundamental questions about the balance of power in the U.S. government.