Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Donald Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies.
The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden.
After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause' — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question.
But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president's authority extends to dismissing federal employees who 'exercise significant executive power,' according to court filings.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful.
He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' Its three liberal justices dissented.
In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president's authority, finding 'no constitutional defect' in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners.
The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.
During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises 'substantial executive authority.'
Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose.
Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president's removal power would violate his constitutional authority.
After Trump announced the Democrats' firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course.
'This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,' they wrote.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms.
That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence.
Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday.
'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' he said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
U.S. Bombing of Iran Keeps Oil Markets on Edge
If the United States had acted a couple of decades ago to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons program, as it did on Saturday, oil prices would have soared. But even though prices might jump when trading resumes this week, the longer-term effect is far less clear. Oil traders must weigh whether the American attack will lead to wider fighting that harms exports from the Persian Gulf, said Muyu Xu, senior Asia crude oil analyst at Kpler, a global commodities and shipping data firm. Wider fighting could drive up prices if oil-loading facilities are damaged or tanker traffic is interrupted. There have been no major disruptions so far since the Israel-Iran conflict escalated this month, though Israel's air attacks did set fire to a refinery and refined products depot supplying Tehran. 'Until now, we haven't seen a single barrel removed from the market,' Ms. Xu said. Military action by Iran to interrupt the flow of oil would mostly harm China, which is closely aligned with Iran and buys nearly all of Iran's oil exports. Oil prices have risen about 10 percent since the recent eruption of hostilities, which began with a surprise attack on Iran by Israel on June 13. They fell on Friday after President Trump said he would decide within two weeks whether to enter the war against Iran. Ever since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, American policymakers worried that Iran might act against the United States by using mines or missiles to block tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is the entrance to the Persian Gulf, through which a sixth of the world's oil moves on tankers, and the northern side of the strait is Iran's coastline. China buys a third of all oil coming out of the gulf, according to Kpler's data, and helped broker a rapprochement two years ago between Iran and Saudi Arabia, another big exporter of oil from the Persian Gulf. By contrast, the United States buys less than 3 percent of the oil coming out of the Persian Gulf, notably from northern Saudi Arabia. The United States became an overall net exporter of oil in 2020 as fracking technologies enabled a big increase in domestic oil production. Iran's oil exports have declined steeply in recent years, although there was a partial rebound last year as China stepped up purchases from Iran following the rapprochement with Saudi Arabia. The United States and Europe have imposed broad prohibitions on the purchases of Iran's oil so as to pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. China has bought Iran's exports at a deep discount to world prices. Beijing leaders have long contended that the sanctions against Iran are not binding on China because the United Nations has not endorsed them. Even more unclear is what could happen to Iran's oil long-term oil exports. The sanctions that have curtailed much of Iran's exports were aimed at forcing it to stop developing nuclear weapons.
Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
D.C. region leaders criticize, endorse U.S. attack on Iran
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) called President Donald Trump's attack on Iranian nuclear sites a reckless display of 'horrible judgment' as elected leaders from the Washington region swiftly responded to Saturday night's news. After the U.S. strikes on the sites became known, responses came quickly, and appeared to split along party lines. Democrats suggested that the U.S. was being drawn into war, while Republicans praised the president, as someone who, in the words of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, 'meant what he has said, over and over again.' In a message posted on social media, Youngkin added: 'Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. Promises made, promises kept.' Support for Trump also came from Virginia's attorney general, Jason Miyares (R), who said the U.S. had responded to what he called the longtime rallying cry of Iran's theocratic regime: 'Death to America.' Rep. Jane Kiggans (R-Virginia) said she supported the bombing 'because Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.' Our goal remained 'peace through strength,' she said, and urged Iran to heed Trump's warning not to retaliate against U.S. forces or citizens. Both of Virginia's Democratic Senators, Kaine and Mark R. Warner, voiced objections to Trump's actions. Warner said Trump had taken office pledging to stop unending foreign wars. But Warner added, 'Tonight he took steps that could drag the United States into another one.' Kaine, in a message posted like many of the others on the platform X, formerly Twitter, appeared particularly vehement in his objections to the decision to attack. Quoting an Israeli official as saying that his country's bombing had set back Iran's nuclear program at least two or three years, Kaine asked: 'So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today?' He said the president had displayed 'horrible judgment,' adding that he would try to allow all senators 'to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' His opposition appeared similar to that of Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) who asserted that Trump had 'dragged us into' war, violating the Constitution. He said Trump's attack 'endangers American lives and risks unleashing dangerous forces we can't control.' Meanwhile, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) addressed the possible security implications of the attack for Washington as the nation's capital. Following the strikes on Iran, she said, consultations had been held with federal security officials to assess possible threats and protect the city. 'Together, we are monitoring intelligence and, as always, ask everyone to stay vigilant. If you see something, say something.'
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Seven Options for Iran After US Attacks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Iran must decide on a response to the attacks on three key nuclear sites by the United States while facing U.S. President Donald Trump's threat of further military action if it retaliates itself. Below are seven options for possible action by Iran. 1. Pursue Nuclear Talks Iran earlier this year engaged in talks with the United States to find a peaceful resolution to the dispute over its nuclear program, but it had failed to move quickly enough to satisfy Trump. Iran last week ruled out further talks while Israel continued its strikes on the Islamic Republic, a possible factor in the U.S. decision to attack days after Trump had said he would decide within the next two weeks. The main sticking point to nuclear talks had been uranium enrichment. The U.S. position was that Iran should not be permitted any enrichment, which can be used for building nuclear weapons. Iran said it would never agree to that and that it sought enrichment only for peaceful purposes. 2. Rally Diplomatic Support Against U.S. Iran will do this anyway. It was clear from the initial statement of Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi that the U.S. attack was being condemned as a violation of international law and with an appeal to the U.N. Charter and to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran's condemnation may well be echoed by other powers such as China and Russia, which have a close relationship with Iran. But the United States could veto any U.N. Security Council resolution and it may also have support from western allies. More important would be whether China and Russia took any stronger action against the United States beyond words. 3. Attacks on U.S. Military Targets The United States maintains military facilities in no fewer than 19 locations throughout the Middle East. Among these, eight are established as permanent bases situated in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, with a deployed force ranging from 40,000 to 50,000 personnel. Attacking any of these would be a major escalation that would be likely to bring an even bigger military response from the United States. It would also involve strikes on Arab countries that have so far condemned the actions of Israel in attacking Iran and had warned the United States against further escalation and would therefore be a diplomatic as well as military challenge. 4. Disrupting Oil Supplies The head of Iran's parliamentary committee on defense and national security has previously stated that shutting the Strait of Hormuz — the key passage linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and a route for roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments — is being seriously considered, according to Iranian state media. Any such disruption could drive oil prices higher and heighten tensions between Iran and Western powers, potentially prompting naval clashes aimed at maintaining access to the vital waterway. A closure would also negatively impact China, a major recipient of Iranian oil, as well as Gulf states that have criticized Israeli strikes on Iran. 5. Using Proxy Forces Iran's network of proxy groups—including the Houthis in Yemen, militias in Iraq, Palestinian factions, and Hezbollah in Lebanon—could potentially carry out rocket attacks, sabotage operations, and covert actions. But all have been heavily battered by recent Israeli and U.S. military operations. Hamas continues to wage the war in the Gaza Strip that began with the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the regional conflict, but is in little place to do more than try to survive. The Houthis in Yemen agreed a truce with the Ameicns after weeks of air strikes. Hezbollah was also badly bruised by its most recent fighting with Israel. A Hezbollah spokesperson told Newsweek that it did not have immediate plans to retaliate against Israel and the United States after the U.S. strikes on Iran. 6. Covert Action This could include physical attacks by groups designated as terrorists by the United States, but would not be limited to those — for which severe retaliation could also be expected if any link were proved. Iran's also has cyber units, including the Mabna Institute, which have carried out attacks on U.S. and Israeli banks, utilities, and military networks, inflicting both economic harm and symbolic blows while preserving plausible deniability. Iranian hackers have escalated cyberattacks on key Israeli infrastructure—such as water and energy systems—highlighting an increasing emphasis on cyber warfare as a primary tool of retaliation. 7. Accelerating Nuclear Program The attacks could prompt Iran to try to achieve a nuclear weapons capability as quickly as possible and this was a threat that had previously been raised by Iranian officials. Countries that have managed to build their own nuclear weapons, such as North Korea, become much harder targets for attacks. The damage to the nuclear facilities from Israeli and U.S. strikes and Israel's killing of nuclear scientists may well be a setback for nuclear weapons ambitions – which Iran had denied – such facilities can be rebuilt and Iran now has the know-how to be able to build nuclear weapons. Should it acquire them it could set off a bigger regional nuclear arms race. Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons already.
