�鶹��ý

UPDATE 08/05/25: After the Fourth Circuit denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion for an administrative stay and stay pending appeal, on July 2, 2025, the DOJ petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the United States District Court for the District of Maryland’s order reinstating the three purportedly terminated Commissioners to their positions at the CPSC. A majority of the Court granted the application on July 23, 2025,. reasoning that, although the order is not “conclusive on the merits,” the application is nevertheless “squarely controlled” by the Trump v. Wilcox decision, where the Supreme Court stayed an identical injunction reinstating members of the National Labor Relations Board, because “the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.” In the dissenting opinion, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson lamented the Court’s use of its “emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress.”

Just hours after the Court’s decision, the biographies of Commissioners Alexander Hoehn-Saric, Richard Trumka, and Mary Boyle were again moved to the “Past Commissioners” section of the CPSC’s website. 

How this ruling will ultimately impact the operations of the CPSC, including whether it remains “independent” or is subsumed within the Department of Health & Human Services as proposed by the Trump Administration, remains to be seen. In the interim, whether the Commission has two or five active Commissioners, the CPSC remains busy—announcing record breaking recalls and unilateral press releases weekly.

UPDATE 06/17/25: In a recent order, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the terminated commissioners’ motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction reinstating them to their positions. The 31-page opinion likens the CPSC to the Federal Trade Commission in structure and function, distinguishing it from single-member agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In doing so, the Court found the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States applicable—upholding the constitutionality of statutory removal-for-cause protections like those found in the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)—while sidestepping the more recent 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which limited Humphrey’s Executor applicability to only multi-member agencies. Citing the CPSA wherein Congress established the CPSC as an “independent regulatory commission,” the opinion notes that the law only permits the President to fire officials for “neglect of duty or malfeasance” and not without cause. A notice of appeal and motion to stay the Court’s order pending appeal has already been filed. �鶹��ý’s Consumer Products team will continue to monitor and provide updates on any developments.

Despite Congress’s establishment of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) as an independent agency through the Consumer Product Safety Act, recent events indicate that the Trump Administration is taking further action to ensure its accountability to the president alone.  Most recently, on May 8, 2025, President Trump purportedly terminated three of the CPSC’s five Commissioners.  According to formal statements from Commissioners Richard Trumka, Jr., Alexander-Hoehn Saric, and Mary T. Boyle—all Democratic appointees—the purported terminations followed their efforts to prevent workforce reductions at the Commission and their opposition to the appointment of two staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

For some, this news is unsurprising.  From the outset of the Trump presidency, the Administration took an unprecedented stance against “.” When considering the fact that the Trump administration recently removed independent commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), it appeared to only be a matter of time before the Administration implemented similar changes at the CPSC. Only a few months prior, leaked documents from the Office of Management and Budget proposed to absorb the functions of the CPSC into the Department of Health, suggesting the Trump Administration may be considering a complete restructuring of the agency. There are questions as to whether the Administration has the authority to make these changes and challenges are all but guaranteed, creating a great deal of uncertainty for the CPSC and the companies that have pending matters before it.

What is Next for the CPSC?

The future of the CPSC remains uncertain, though for now it is expected that the remaining Commissioner, Acting Chair, and staff will endeavor to continue the CPSC’s mission. 

Challenges to the recent terminations are inevitable. Commissioner Alexander Hoehn-Saric—who served as chair of the CPSC from October 2021 to January 2025, with a fixed term lasting until October 2027— “[t]he President’s action is unlawful and is part of this Administration’s efforts to eliminate federal agencies, personnel, and policies that have made Americans safer,” He also said that his termination was an “illegal attempt to remove me from the CPSC [and] happened immediately after my colleagues and I took steps to advance our safety work and protect our staff from arbitrary firings.” Commissioner Richard Trumka, Jr. echoed similar sentiments, noting his fixed term does not expire until October of 2028, and that “Unfortunately for the President, he did not have the authority to fire me.”  Both Commissioners Hoehn-Saric and Trumka vowed to file lawsuits challenging the terminations. Commissioner Boyle, while less direct, signaled that she may also do the same, noting: “Until my term as commissioner concludes, . . . I will use my voice to speak out on behalf of safety.” Despite these claims, the CPSC website catalogs Hoehn-Saric, Trumka, and Boyle as former commissioners,  and Peter Feldman as the Acting Chair for the multi-member agency.

The legal challenges to these actions will likely focus on statutory removal-for-cause protections typically applicable to Commissioners at independent agencies. But, as is the case with similar litigation involving the FTC and NLRB, such challenges will take time. Thus, it will likely be “business as usual” at the Commission while the challenges wind their way through the courts.

�鶹��ý is following this developing situation closely and will continue to monitor. Follow along with �鶹��ý’s Presidential Hub to get the latest updates and insights into lawmakers’ action and how it may impact your business.