In a landmark ruling that could reshape the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump, granting him the authority to remove three Biden-era appointees to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) without cause.
The decision, delivered late last week, signals another significant step in the Court’s ongoing reassessment of presidential authority over independent regulatory agencies.
A Blow to 90 Years of Precedent
The ruling effectively narrows the scope of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), a nearly century-old precedent that limited a president’s ability to fire officials from independent commissions at will. In that case, the Court unanimously held that President Franklin Roosevelt lacked the authority to dismiss a Federal Trade Commission commissioner simply because the official opposed New Deal policies.
For decades, the Humphrey’s Executor decision has been seen as a cornerstone in safeguarding the independence of regulatory bodies such as the FTC, the Federal Reserve, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Supreme Court’s latest order, however, suggests a willingness to chip away at those protections.
“The Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect,” the majority opinion stated, referencing an earlier ruling in which the Court expanded presidential authority over removals.
The Emergency Docket and Divided Court
The case reached the high court through the emergency docket—sometimes called the Court’s “shadow docket”—meaning justices ruled without full oral arguments or the extensive deliberations typical of major constitutional cases.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while siding with the majority, indicated in a separate opinion that he would have preferred to hear the case in full during the fall term. His stance suggested caution but ultimately deferred to expanding executive authority in the short term.
By contrast, the Court’s three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—issued a sharp dissent.
Justice Kagan, writing on behalf of the minority, warned that the ruling represented a dangerous shift in constitutional power:
“The majority has acted on the emergency docket—with little time, scant briefing, and no argument—to override Congress’s decisions about how to structure administrative agencies so that they can perform their prescribed duties. By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.”
Her words underscored growing liberal concerns that the Court’s conservative majority is dismantling long-standing structural safeguards in favor of a more expansive presidency.
The Broader Constitutional Context
The question of whether the president can fire officials from independent agencies has been simmering for years. In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020), the Supreme Court struck down provisions that prevented the president from removing the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause. That decision opened the door to broader challenges against similar protections across other regulatory bodies.
Trump’s case against the CPSC follows the same trajectory, with the Court now signaling that independence for commissions may be on even shakier ground than before.
The majority’s reasoning suggests that if an agency wields executive power—such as enforcing regulations or bringing legal actions—the officials who lead it fall squarely under presidential authority.
Political and Practical Implications
For Trump, the ruling represents both a symbolic and practical victory. By securing the right to remove Biden’s appointees, he gains more direct control over the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an agency responsible for regulating consumer products, enforcing recalls, and ensuring public safety in everything from children’s toys to household electronics.
Critics argue that giving the White House such unilateral power undermines the Commission’s ability to act independently of political pressures, potentially skewing decisions toward the priorities of whichever party holds the presidency.
Supporters counter that the decision restores democratic accountability. They argue that unelected commissioners should not be shielded indefinitely from removal when their decisions impact businesses, consumers, and taxpayers nationwide.
A Step Toward Expanding Executive Power
Although the ruling is temporary, it reflects a growing judicial philosophy within the Court’s conservative bloc—one that favors unitary executive theory, the belief that all executive authority should flow directly from the president.
Legal scholars note that the Court did not overturn Humphrey’s Executor outright, but the willingness to sidestep its protections through the emergency docket marks a pivotal moment. Some analysts now speculate that a full confrontation with the precedent may be coming in the near future.
What Comes Next
The decision is already sparking political debate in Washington. Congressional Democrats warn that dismantling safeguards around independent agencies could weaken their oversight role and make regulatory bodies vulnerable to partisan swings.
Republicans, meanwhile, are celebrating the ruling as a restoration of constitutional balance. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan praised the Court’s move, saying it was time to “end the decades-long experiment of unelected bureaucrats acting without accountability.”
For the CPSC, the practical impact may be immediate. Trump is expected to move quickly in replacing the three commissioners with appointees more closely aligned with his administration’s deregulatory agenda.
Still, the case is far from over. Because the ruling came through the emergency docket, the full Court may revisit the issue in its upcoming term, setting the stage for a definitive showdown over Humphrey’s Executor and the independence of regulatory commissions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s siding with Trump on the removal of Biden appointees marks one of the most consequential developments in the modern battle over executive power. While framed as a temporary measure, the ruling hints at a long-term shift that could fundamentally alter the structure of the federal government.
By weakening a precedent nearly 90 years old, the Court has opened the door to a future where presidents may exercise far greater control over the regulatory state. Whether this shift enhances accountability or undermines independence remains a question that will dominate constitutional debates for years to come.
