The Supreme Court rules in a case that would expand the president’s powers

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case that sought to give the president expanded powers to fire commissioners of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which could reduce the independence of agencies created by Congress .

Rejecting a challenge to the CPSC’s structure, which argued it was too shielded from liability, the president will still only be able to remove commissioners “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

The CPSC oversees the safety of consumer products and issues recalls and warnings that are decided by a five-member panel appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

In response to Monday’s decision, said Will Hild, executive director of Consumer Research Newsweek the battle for consumer protection was not over.

“While it is disappointing that the Supreme Court has rejected our appeal, Consumers’ Research will continue to look for ways to protect consumers from an unconstitutional bureaucracy that lacks adequate checks and balances,” Hild said in a statement.

“No regulatory agency that directly affects consumers and exercises substantial executive power, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, should not be shielded from any executive oversight.”

Hild said the lack of oversight was a serious problem that did not benefit consumers.

During CPSC officials’ seven-year terms, those panel members can only be removed for the reasons outlined above, which the challengers argued were too restrictive.

“Under our system of checks and balances, those who exercise substantial executive power must, in some way, be accountable to the source of that power: the people, through the duly elected president,” an amicus brief from Consumers’ Research, et al. , filed before Monday’s hearing, read.

The groups said agencies like the CPSC should not exercise substantial executive power without being accountable to the executive, and that the current setup turns these agencies into a “headless fourth branch” of government.

A federal district court had originally sided with the organizations, declaring the restrictions around dismissals unconstitutional. Three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th^th Circuit reversed that decision.

“We conclude that Supreme Court precedent still on the books supports the commission’s structure,” Judge Don Willett wrote in January 2024. “If it were otherwise, then the FCC, the NSF, the SBA, and dozens of other agencies would all be unconstitutionally structured. The Supreme Court has not yet directly accepted this conclusion.”

That prompted the plaintiffs to take the case to the Supreme Court, and Biden administration officials expressed concern that a ruling in favor of those responsible for the lawsuit would open the way for presidential interference with other federal agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. the National Transportation Safety Board.

The Biden administration’s defense of the current deal stems from a 1935 Federal Trade Commission ruling that examined the question of whether the president had the power to remove executive officials.

A more recent 2020 decision involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in which the Supreme Court invalidated its similar leadership structure, was used by challengers.

Newsweek reached out to the CPSC via email for comment on Monday’s Supreme Court decision.