Trump can fire the 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Supreme Court says

Los Angeles Times ^ | July 23, 2025 1:52 PM PT | David G. Savage

[E. Pluribus Unum]

• The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with Trump on matters related to federal agencies, including their spending, staffing and leadership.

• After the firings in May, a federal judge had ruled the firings were illegal and reinstated the three to their positions.

The Supreme Court signaled again Wednesday that it believes the president has the power to fire the leaders of agencies and commissions that Congress said were independent.

Granting another emergency appeal, the justices set aside a Baltimore judge’s order and upheld President Trump’s decision to fire the three Democratic appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In a brief order, the conservative majority said it had said agency officials may be fired by the president.

The three liberals dissented.

“Once again, this Court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “By allowing the President to remove commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with Trump and against district judges on matters related to federal agencies, including their spending, staffing and leadership.

They believe the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to control the government, including by firing and replacing the heads of agencies, boards and commissions.

They have ruled for Trump even when his removal orders conflicted with the law as established by Congress.

At issue is whether Congress holds the power to structure the government or instead whether the president has the executive authority to reshape it .

Since 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was established to set railroad rates, Congress has created independent agencies with the aim of giving non-partisan experts the authority...

[Pete Dovgan]

Now remove the judge who said he couldn’t.

[TheDon]

How about this title? 😁

“Supreme Court Blocks Federal Judge, Clears Way for Trump to Fire 3 Democrats from Consumer Product Safety Commission”

[tumblindice]

The Weird Sisters are seething lol

[jdege]

Since 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was established to set railroad rates, Congress hasProgressives have created "independent" agencies with the aim of

Ensuring Progressives retain control of government even when they lose elections.

[11th_VA]

The most transformative presidency of my lifetime continues to win

[JZelle]

Supreme Court says Trump can have a little more sauerkraut on his Reuben.

[gildafarrell]

Hippee ki yay!

[Georgia Girl 2]

Another win!

[logi_cal869]

Rhetorical:

Why was it even a question (obvious answer: Lawfare)

[BiteYourSelf]

I don’t think there’s anything in the constitution that allows Congress to create independent agencies.🤔

[jdege]

It was a long established principle of Common Law that delegating a power did not grant the power to further delegate it.

This non-delegation principle meant that Congress, having been delegated exclusive law-making authority, did not have the authority to grant law-making authority to anyone else.

So Congress has the power to create executive agencies, and said departments clearly have the authority to propose new laws, but until a Progressive SCOTUS simply decided to forget the non-delegation principle, they did not have the power to create law. They could suggest, but Congress needed to approve.

A lot of ire has been spilled regarding the Slaughterhouse cases, Chevron deference, etc. but we should include on the list INS v. Chadha, which held that the legislative veto was unconstitutional.

It was one of the most egregious decisions when it comes to ensuring that the administrative agencies were accountable to no one.