Supreme Court Denies Reinstatement of CPSC Members
On July 23, 2025, the US Supreme Court granted an emergency stay of a district court order from a Maryland court. The Supreme Court’s decision in Donald Trump, President of the United States et al. v. Mary Boyle et al denied the reinstatement of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
The decision in this new case is similar to the Court’s decision upholding the removal of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris. The decision issued earlier this year upheld the removal of Cathy Harris at the MSPB and the removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This is referenced as the Wilcox case in the new decision.
As the Court noted in this case:
Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases. The stay we issued in Wilcox reflected “our judgment that 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.” (Citation removed) The same is true on the facts presented here, where 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.
These two Supreme Court decisions issued this year do not resolve the issue of whether the members of organizations like the MSPB, NLRB, and CSPC fired by President Trump will ultimately remain fired or will be reinstated. It does mean the Supreme Court is now involved. These two decisions likely will be cited in determining the result of several court cases regarding the Trump administration’s attempts to “optimize” the federal bureaucracy.
Argument of the Dissenters
Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the most recent Supreme Court issuance. He urged a full review (“certiorari before judgment”). Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented. Their dissent stresses that the emergency order “destroys the independence of an independent agency” and undermines a century-old principle outlined in a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States.
The Humphrey’s Executor decision upheld the independence of bipartisan, multi-member agencies ― especially those exercising quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. The Court ruled at that time that the U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. Congress to enact laws limiting the President’s ability to fire executive officials of an independent agency that is quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial.
Justice Kavanaugh made this argument in his concurring statement:
[i]f we grant a stay but do not also grant certiorari before judgment, we may leave the lower courts and affected parties with extended uncertainty and confusion about the status of the precedent in question. Moreover, when the question is whether to narrow or overrule one of this Court’s precedents rather than how to resolve an open or disputed question of federal law, further percolation in the lower courts is not particularly useful because lower courts cannot alter or overrule this Court’s precedents.
While that argument is logical, the Court has not issued a final decision—just an emergency order. The key holding of the Supreme Court in this emergency order reaffirms that, absent further review, the President likely has the authority to remove independent-agency commissioners without cause and that courts should generally defer to executive removal pending full appellate review.
Implications for Federal Employees
Independent federal agencies (e.g., CPSC, NLRB, MSPB, FCC, SEC) rely on multi‑member structures where appointees traditionally serve “for cause” protections under Humphrey’s Executor (1935).
The Court’s recent actions—first in Wilcox, and now in Boyle—suggests it views those protections as tentative, even for agencies with significant executive functions.
For employees across federal agencies, these decisions indicate that:
- The President could potentially remove commissioners without cause sooner than previously thought.
- Staggered terms and Senate confirmation may offer less insulation than traditionally assumed.
- Pending full Supreme Court review, the removal of people in these positions is likely to stand, but they will still be subject to later judicial scrutiny.
The removal authority is not absolute. Congress can still legislate explicit cause requirements for removal. These requirements might withstand scrutiny in future cases.
These two cases (Wilcox and Boyle) are emergency orders. They do not settle the constitutional questions that have been raised. Final decisions on the merits of the cases will be the ultimate determinations of the issues.
Conclusion
As various cases involving federal employees and federal agencies work their way through the judicial system, the uncertainty of federal employees about their future work prospects of working for the federal government remains as part of the federal workforce environment.
As these cases proceed and significant decisions are issued, FedSmith will keep readers informed about the latest twists and turns leading to a final outcome. The federal workforce is already smaller than in past years, with fewer agencies, and additional changes to workforce requirements are expected. The rationale for the changes is that a leaner workforce with enhanced performance requirements and fewer regulations to prevent removing employees who may not be performing up to expectations will result in a more efficient government that better serves the American public.
