In a surprising decision, a federal district judge in Maryland has ordered President Donald Trump to reinstate three members of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission who were dismissed from their positions earlier this year.
The judge, Matthew J. Maddox, ruled that the terminations of Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. were illegal, asserting that they could only be removed for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, neither of which were alleged against them.
The three members were appointed by President Joe Biden and are integral to enforcing consumer product safety laws. Under the current board structure, which consists of five members appointed by the President, the terminations leave the board with only two Republican members.
Congressional rules stipulate that no more than three active members of the board can belong to the same political party, implying that Trump would likely have to appoint three new Democrats to replace them.
Judge Maddox’s ruling references a landmark 1935 Supreme Court case known as Humphrey’s Executor, which limits a sitting President’s authority to remove certain government board members. While the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority has not formally overturned this precedent, recent legal decisions suggest that changes may be forthcoming.
Notably, Trump’s dismissal of Boyle, Hoehn-Saric, and Trumka coincided with the firings of additional members from the National Labor Relations and Merit Systems Protection Boards. Members Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris have also pursued legal actions based on similar grounds, with lower courts initially siding in their favor. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump could remove executive officers without cause who wield power on his behalf.
Despite these developments, Judge Maddox appears to stand firm on the applicability of Humphrey’s Executor during his ruling. He notes in his 31-page order that while this precedent may be under scrutiny, it remains legally binding.
Maddox addressed concerns regarding potential disruption if the fired members were to be reinstated during the ongoing litigation, referencing recent Supreme Court emergency orders that indicated a stay on preliminary injunctive relief was wise to prevent such interruptions.
This ruling comes amid increasing scrutiny of Trump’s ability to navigate the judicial system, with many observers noting that he has faced a wave of nationwide injunctions, contrasting sharply with historical norms for Presidents. Judges in Maryland and other northeastern states have been particularly active in issuing such injunctions against Trump’s policies and actions.
The President and his allies have expressed frustrations with district judges, labeling them as obstacles to his agenda, and underscoring concerns regarding separation of powers. Some have even debated the concept of Trump potentially ignoring court decisions, citing the limitations of judicial enforcement mechanisms against a sitting President who has significant control over the Justice Department.
Amid this backdrop, Eric Wessan, the Solicitor General for the State of Iowa, expressed his views on social media platform X, labeling the judicial resistance to the Supreme Court’s orders as a novel development.
Wessan suggested that further guidance from the Supreme Court may be necessary to prevent lawful removals from being hindered.
Similarly, Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule criticized what he perceives as the glaring overreach of some district judges, contending that there must be a resolution to such judicial interventions.
Judge Maddox’s ruling represents yet another legal hurdle for President Trump, who has consistently faced challenges in the form of injunctions and other judicial actions throughout his presidency. Critics have noted that these judicial interventions have become a common aspect of Trump’s time in office, raising questions about the balance of power and the role of judiciary in executive affairs.
As the landscape evolves, the implications of Judge Maddox’s decision will likely continue to unfold, with observers keenly watching for further legal developments and potential impacts on Trump’s administration moving forward.
image source from：https://www.wmar2news.com/infocus/maryland-judge-orders-trump-to-rehire-fired-consumer-product-safety-commissioners-despite-scotus-rulings
