WASHINGTON–The Supreme Court has ruled President Trump can proceed with the firing of three Democratic members of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who were fired and then reinstated to their roles on the board.
The ruling comes just days after the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that NCUA board members Todd Harper and Tonya Otsuka, who were fired by the president in April, should be reinstated to their posts, as the CU Daily reported in detail here. The Trump administration has since filed an appeal in the case and it will now be up to the Supreme Court whether it wants to hear the case.
6-3 Vote By Justices
In its ruling on the firing of the CPSC board members– Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka–the majority sided with the Trump administration in a 6-3 vote on an emergency order, the last of the Supreme Court’s current term. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox had ruled their firings were unlawful and ordered they be reinstated to their roles. The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to grant the Trump administration’s request to stay the order, clearing the way for the administration to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court.
Similarities & Differences
There are similarities but also differences between the case filed by Harper and Otsuka and the CPSC case.
The CPSC board members argued, in part, that their removals from the CPSC would “disrupt the status quo” from an agency dedicated to consumer protection and safety.
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.
Like other related rulings the CPSC case also cited the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, in which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.
What Judge in NCUA Case Ruled
Harper and Otsuka have made a similar argument based on Humphrey’s as well.
In issuing his 27-page ruling ordering the reinstatement of the two NCUA board members, Judge Amir Ali wrote that, “For its part, the government concedes the President lacked any cause for the terminations. The government argues instead that the President maintains absolute authority to remove NCUA board members at will, and that reinstatement is not an available remedy. These arguments—which the government all but concedes would apply equally to the Chair of the Federal Reserve and FDIC Board members—are unavailing.
Congress’ Intent ‘Clear’
“The statutory text and context, and the structure and function of the NCUA, make clear Congress restricted the President’s authority to fire NCUA Board members,” the opinion continues. “And Congress did so consistent with the separation of powers because the NCUA Board fits comfortably within the traditional model of a multimember expert agency that does not wield substantial executive power. Under governing Circuit precedent, reinstatement is available when the President unlawfully removes an executive officer and proper here. The Court accordingly grants the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denies the government’s cross motion.”
Judge Ali found the structure of the NCUA board closely tracks the traditional multimember board held to have removal protection in Humphrey’s Executor.
