Trump’s Removal Powers Reinforced Amid Ongoing Legal Debate

This latest Supreme Court order follows a similar intervention in May, when the justices authorized 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 were defying the Court’s guidance, highlighting a federal judge’s decision to block the dismissal of the three CPSC commissioners. Sauer urged the justices to take the case directly to resolve the matter definitively, though the Court opted instead to send it back to a lower court.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, expressed concern that postponing a full review could create prolonged uncertainty regarding the president’s removal powers. He noted that further lower court proceedings may not be useful when the core question involves potentially overturning longstanding Supreme Court precedent.

The CPSC commissioners, appointed by President Biden, are protected by federal law, which allows removal only for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” These safeguards exist to maintain agency independence and prevent direct political influence by the executive branch.

Represented by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, the commissioners asked the Supreme Court not to intervene, arguing that the government had not demonstrated justification for an extraordinary stay. They emphasized that they had been actively serving in their roles, and halting their work would disrupt the status quo.

The case highlights the ongoing tension between presidential authority and independent agency protections, raising significant questions about the balance of power in the U.S. government and the future scope of executive control over federal agencies.