Judge rules Trump lacked authority to fire CPSC members, orders reinstatement

A federal judge in Maryland on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump lacked the authority to fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and ordered their reinstatement — teeing up another high-stakes court clash centered on Trump’s ability as commander-in-chief to remove or otherwise control the members of independent agencies.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee, sided with the three ousted members of the board — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — in ruling that their firings were unlawful and ordered all three members to be reinstated to their posts.

In his ruling, Maddox said that the tenured design and protection of the five-member, staggered-term CPSC board does “not interfere with” Trump’s executive branch powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP FROM FIRING FEDERAL BOARD MEMBERS, TEES UP SUPREME COURT FIGHT

The decision is a near-term blow for Trump, and comes just weeks after the Supreme Court last month agreed to uphold, for now, Trump’s removal of two Democratic appointees from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB). 

Both board members had challenged their terminations as “unlawful” in separate lawsuits filed in D.C. federal court. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in May to temporarily allow the firing of both board members, siding with lawyers for the Trump administration, who had urged the justices to keep both members on the job while the case continued to move through the lower courts.

In his ruling, Maddox sought to distinguish those cases from the terminations of members of the CPSC board and said that the Trump administration, in this case, had failed to identify neglect or malfeasance by any other Senate-confirmed commissioners on the CPSC, which is required by law to justify their removals. 

JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDA

People walk past the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2024. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

“For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds no constitutional defect in the statutory restriction on Plaintiffs’ removal and that Plaintiffs’ purported removal from office was unlawful,” he said in the order.

“The Court…