In a ruling that could reshape the balance of power between the White House and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to remove three Biden-appointed officials from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) without needing to show cause. The decision marks a significant, though provisional, expansion of executive authority over federal regulatory agencies.
Background of the Case
The case centers on whether presidents have the constitutional authority to dismiss members of so-called “independent agencies” at will. Since 1935, under the precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Congress has been permitted to limit presidential removal powers for members of regulatory commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. These agencies were designed to operate at arm’s length from the White House, free from partisan or political interference, while still accountable to both Congress and the courts.
President Biden appointed three commissioners to the CPSC in 2021. The CPSC is tasked with overseeing the safety of consumer products ranging from children’s toys to household appliances. Its regulations carry broad implications for businesses and consumers alike. Traditionally, its members, once confirmed by the Senate, could not be removed by the president without specific cause such as misconduct or neglect of duty.
President Trump, after returning to office in 2025, moved to oust these three commissioners, claiming their removal was necessary to restore accountability and executive oversight. The commissioners resisted, arguing that Congress had specifically insulated their positions from political dismissal to preserve regulatory independence.
The dispute quickly reached the Supreme Court, where Trump’s lawyers argued that the Constitution vests all executive power in the president — including the authority to fire officers who exercise executive functions.
The Court’s Decision
In a brief but consequential order, the Court sided with Trump, holding that the president’s removal of the CPSC commissioners could stand while litigation continues.
“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 Court stated, referring to a 2020 case that curtailed restrictions on presidential removal power.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, noted that he would have granted the case for full review in the upcoming term, signaling that the Court may issue a more comprehensive ruling in the months ahead.
The Dissent
The three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — issued a sharp dissent. Writing for the group, Justice Kagan criticized the majority for acting through the Court’s emergency or “shadow” docket, which allows rulings without full briefing or oral arguments.
“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,” Kagan wrote.
She warned that the ruling accelerates a transfer of power from Congress to the president. “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.”
Implications for Humphrey’s Executor
The ruling directly challenges the nearly 90-year-old precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor. That case, decided unanimously in 1935, limited the president’s power to dismiss members of the Federal Trade Commission. It arose after President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to remove an FTC commissioner who opposed aspects of his New Deal policies. The Court ruled against Roosevelt, affirming Congress’s authority to insulate independent regulatory officials from political firings.
By allowing Trump to dismiss the CPSC appointees without cause, the Court signaled that it may be prepared to overturn or significantly narrow Humphrey’s Executor. Such a shift would grant presidents far greater authority to shape regulatory agencies, undermining the independence that Congress built into their structures.
Broader Context: The “Unitary Executive”
The ruling fits into a broader trend in recent years of strengthening the “unitary executive” theory — the idea that Article II of the Constitution vests full control of the executive branch in the president.
Supporters of this view argue that presidents must have direct authority over executive officers to ensure accountability. If voters hold the president responsible for government actions, they reason, then the president must also have the power to hire and fire those who carry out those actions.
Critics argue that this approach risks politicizing regulatory agencies that were designed to operate with stability and expertise, rather than being swayed by the administration in power. They point to agencies like the CPSC, FTC, and Federal Reserve as examples where independence is crucial to protecting consumers, markets, and public trust.
Political Reactions
President Trump celebrated the decision as a victory for executive authority and his administration’s deregulatory agenda. In a post on Truth Social, he called the Biden-appointed commissioners “obstructionists” who were blocking his administration’s reforms. “This is a great win for the American people,” Trump wrote. “We need regulators who are accountable, not unelected bureaucrats who think they run the government.”
Democrats, meanwhile, warned of the consequences. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) criticized the ruling as “a dangerous assault on independent oversight.” She argued that if presidents can remove commissioners at will, regulatory agencies will become “political tools, not neutral guardians of public safety.”
Consumer advocacy groups also raised alarms, saying the decision could undermine protections for everyday Americans. “The Consumer Product Safety Commission exists to prevent dangerous products from harming families,” said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen. “If commissioners are subject to political firing, their decisions may prioritize political agendas over safety science.”
What Comes Next
Although the ruling is technically temporary, it sets a powerful precedent. The Court is expected to hear full arguments on the issue later this year. Legal scholars believe that the conservative majority — which has already chipped away at restrictions on presidential removal power in past cases — may use the opportunity to overturn Humphrey’s Executor outright.
If that happens, the president’s power to dismiss members of independent commissions like the FTC, CPSC, and the Securities and Exchange Commission could dramatically expand. This would fundamentally alter the structure of the federal government, increasing presidential control at the expense of congressional oversight.
For now, Trump is free to replace the three Biden appointees with his own picks. That move could significantly shift the direction of the CPSC, particularly on issues of product recalls, safety standards, and corporate accountability.
A Turning Point in Separation of Powers?
The Court’s decision underscores a larger struggle over separation of powers in the American system of government. By granting presidents more latitude to control regulatory officials, the judiciary may be tilting the balance toward a more centralized, executive-driven model.
As Justice Kagan warned in her dissent, the implications may go far beyond the CPSC: “If this Court continues on this path, the independence of our regulatory system — carefully constructed by Congress over generations — will be dismantled bit by bit.”
Whether the public sees this as overdue accountability or a dangerous concentration of power may depend on political perspective. But either way, the ruling represents a major moment in the evolution of presidential authority — one with consequences likely to reverberate long after the current administration.