US supreme court lets Trump fire three consumer product safety regulators
Granting a justice department request, the justices lifted Maryland-based US district judge Matthew Maddox's order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Democratic former president Joe Biden while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds.
Maddox had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in firing commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created by Congress in 1972 and tasked with reducing the risk to consumers of injury or death from defective or harmful products. The agency sets safety standards, conducts product-safety investigations and issues recalls of hazardous products.
To establish the five-member commission's independence from direct White House control, Congress authorized the president to fire commissioners only for neglect of duty or malfeasance, not at will.
After being notified in May that Trump had fired them, Boyle, Hoehn-Saric and Trumka sued, arguing that their removals were without basis and that Trump had exceeded his authority. The staggered, seven-year terms of the commissioners were not set to expire until October 2025, 2027 and 2028, respectively, according to court filings.
The justice department argued that the law shielding commissioners from being fired except for good cause violates the president's removal authority under the US constitution's provision delineating executive power.
Maddox, a Biden appointee, sided with the commissioners in a 2 July ruling and ordered their reinstatement. The judge upheld the commission's removal protections under a nine-decade-old supreme court precedent that preserved similar protections for US Federal Trade Commission members.
The Richmond, Virginia-based US fourth circuit court of appeals on 1 July denied the administration's request to halt Maddox's reinstatement order. This prompted the justice department's emergency filing to the supreme court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.
The commissioners in their supreme court filing urged the justices to reject the administration's request. They said that allowing the dismissals would deprive the American public of critical consumer safety expertise and oversight.
In May, the supreme court in a similar case allowed Trump to remove two Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) – despite job protections for these posts – while a legal challenge to those removals proceeded.
The court in that ruling said the constitution gives the president wide latitude to fire government officials who wield executive power on his behalf and that the administration 'is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power'.
The supreme court has sided with Trump in a series of cases on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January, including clearing the way for his administration to pursue mass government job cuts, gut the Department of Education and implement some of his hardline immigration policies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump dubbed himself the ‘father of IVF' on the campaign trail. But his pledge to mandate insurance cover has disappeared
Donald Trump's vow to expand in vitro fertilization (IVF) access to millions of Americans is on hold, with White House officials backing away from plans to require Obamacare health plans to include the service as an essential health benefit, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. The Post reported that White House officials have privately moved away from the prospect of pushing for legislation to address the issue despite it being one of Trump's signature campaign promises, citing two persons with knowledge of internal discussions in Trumpworld. A senior administration official also acknowledged to the newspaper that changing Obamacare to force insurers to cover new services would require congressional action, not an executive order. The president has governed largely by executive fiat in his second term as he grapples with a closely-divded Congress and an unruly GOP majority in the House of Representatives. He's used those executive orders to dismantle whole parts of the federal government, including USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The president even tried to take an axe to the Department of Education, though that battle is still being waged in the courts. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Trump to cut roughly a quarter of the agency's staff. But many of Trump's campaign promises lie outside of his ability to influence via the hiring or firing of people and redirection of agency resources or agendas. In 2024, he laid out no direct path for his goal to expand IVF access, only telling voters that insurance companies would be forced to cover it. Still, he proclaimed himself the 'father of IVF' at at Fox News town hall, and promised during an NBC News interview: 'We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment. We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.' At the time, there was little to no acknowledgment of the fact that many if not most conservatives still oppose the Affordable Care Act and the same healthcare exchanges which Trump was now promising to utilize as he sought to use the power of the federal government to expand healthcare coverage. Now, with the passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' without any provisions expanding IVF access, and with the prospect of further policy gains before the midterms growing dimmer, it's unclear when the White House would have another chance to press the issue in Congress. In February, the president signed an executive order directing his advisers to 'submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' It's been crickets on the issue since then. In 2024, many of Trump's critics and the media pointed out that the policy would essentially amount to a reversal or at the very least coming in sharp contrast to the first Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which ended in failure, and a contradiction of the conservative view that government should not exercise that level of control over Americans' health care decisions. The president's promise thrilled his party's natalists, embodied by Vice President JD Vance and an army of right-wing immigration hawks who fear the changing American demographics brought on as a result of falling birth rates and high levels of migration. It also wowed some of his Democratic and left-leaning critics, who see the policy as a means of furthering their goal of expanding access to healthcare for poorer Americans. For Vance, the issue of declining U.S. birth rates predates his MAGA heel-turn. In 2019, he told a gathering of conservatives in Washington: 'Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.' 'We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths,' the future vice president added at the time. Two years later, he'd tell a right-leaning podcast: 'I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.' During the 2024 campaign, those views emerged again as Vance attacked Democrats as 'childless cat ladies' and leaned heavily into attacking the left for supposedly being anti-family. Progressives fought back, pointing to efforts to expand the child tax credit and other benefits that aid young families under Joe Biden and other Democratic administrations, including the passage of Barack Obama's signature law: the Affordable Care Act.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
White House officials rush to defend Trump after shaky economic week
Donald Trump administration officials fanned out on Sunday's US political shows to defend the president's policies after a bruising week of poor economic, trade and employment numbers that culminated with the firing of labor statistics chief Erika McEntarfer. US trade representative Jamieson Greer said Trump has 'real concerns' about the jobs numbers that extend beyond Friday's report that showed the national economy added 73,000 jobs in July, far below expectations. Job growth numbers were revised down by 285,000 for the two previous months as well. On CBS News's Face the Nation, Greer defended Trump's decision to fire McEntarfer, a respected statistician, saying: 'You want to be able to have somewhat reliable numbers. There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways.' He added: 'The president is the president. He can choose who works in the executive branch.' But William Beach, who served as Trump's commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in his first presidency, warned that McEntarfer's dismissal would undermine confidence in the quality of US economic data. The BLS gave no reason for the revised data but noted that 'monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors'. 'This is damaging,' Beach said on Sunday on CNN's State of the Union. 'I don't know that there's any grounds at all for this firing. 'And it really hurts the statistical system. It undermines credibility in BLS.' McEntarfer on Friday published a statement on social media reacting to her dismissal, calling it the 'honor my life' to have served as BLS commissioner. She said the BLS employs 'many dedicated civil servants tasked with measuring a vast and dynamic economy'. 'It is vital and important work, and I thank them for their service to this nation,' McEntarfer's statement on the Bluesky platform said. Uproar over McEntarfer's firing has come as a series of new tariff rates are due to come into effect this month. While the president has predicted a golden age for the US economy, many economists warn that higher import tariffs could ultimately weaken American economic activity. On CBS, Greer said that Trump's tariff rates are 'pretty much set' and unlikely to be re-negotiated before they come into effect. The first six months of Trump's second terms have been characterized by a seesawing of tariff rate announcements that earned the president the moniker on Wall Street of Taco – 'Trump always chickens out'. But last week he issued an executive order outlining tariff modifications for dozens of countries after he had twice delayed implementation. Yet Greer also said many of the tariff rates announced 'are set rates pursuant to deals'. 'Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country,' he said. On NBC's Meet the Press, the national economic council (NEC) director, Kevin Hassett, said modified US tariff rates were now 'more or less locked in, although there will have to be some dancing around the edges about exactly what we mean when we do this or that'. Asked if tariff rates could change again, he said, 'I would rule it out because these are the final deals.' On Fox News Sunday, Hassett said he also supported McEntarfer's dismissal. 'I think what we need is a fresh set of eyes at the BLS, somebody who can clean this thing up,' he remarked. But former treasury secretary Larry Summers told ABC's This Week that McEntarfer's firing was 'way beyond anything that Richard Nixon ever did', alluding to the late former president who resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal. Summers said Trump's claim that the poor job numbers were 'phony' and designed to make him look bad 'is a preposterous charge'. 'These numbers are put together by teams of literally hundreds of people following detailed procedures that are in manuals,' Summers said. 'There's no conceivable way that the head of the BLS could have manipulated this number. The numbers are in line with what we're seeing from all kinds of private sector sources.' Summers placed McEntarfer's firing, Trump's pressure on Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, to lower interest rates, and the strong-arm tactics that the administration has aimed at universities, law firms and media institutions in the same bucket. 'This is the stuff of democracies giving way to authoritarianism,' Summers said. 'Firing statisticians goes with threatening the heads of newspapers. 'It goes with launching assaults on universities. It goes with launching assaults on law firms that defend clients that the elected boss finds uncongenial. This is really scary stuff.'
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Motor finance customers could receive payout as FCA will consult on scheme
Many motor finance firms were not complying with rules or the law by not providing customers with relevant information about commission paid by lenders to the car dealers who sold the loans, the FCA said. It comes after Friday's ruling by the Supreme Court on cases in which the FCA had intervened. While some motor finance customers will not get compensation because in many cases commission payments were legal, the court ruled that in certain circumstances the failure to properly disclose commission arrangements could be unfair and therefore unlawful, the FCA added. The FCA estimates that most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The final total cost of any compensation scheme is estimated to be between £9 billion and £18 billion, the FCA added. The consultation will be launched by early October. If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. On Friday, the UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without a motorists' fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. But in a decision on Friday, justices at the UK's highest court overturned the Court of Appeal ruling, though some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. However, the judges upheld a claim brought by one driver under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair', awarding him the commission amount of £1,650.95 plus interest. Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, said: 'It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It's fair for their customers to be compensated. 'We also want to ensure that the market, relied on by millions each year, can continue to work well and consumers can get a fair deal. 'Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy to participate in, so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. If you do, it will cost you a significant chunk of any money you get. 'It will take time to establish a scheme but we hope to start getting people any money they are owed next year.' People who have already complained do not need to do anything, the FCA said. Consumers who are concerned that they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much to their motor finance lender should complain now. Consumers do not need to use a claims management company or law firm and doing so could cost them around 30% of any compensation paid, it added. In a post on X, consumer champion Martin Lewis wrote 'there's no harm in putting a DIY complaint now to see if you had a Discretionary Commission Arrangement'. The FCA will propose rules on how lenders should 'consistently, efficiently and fairly' decide whether someone is owed compensation and how much, it said. It will monitor if firms are following the rules and act if they are not. Sam Ward, chief investigator and director at Sentinel Legal, called for the FCA to engage with law firms. He said: 'The FCA has taken long enough to pick a side and now is not the time to rush anything. 'They've known about this scandal since 2017. They banned discretionary commissions in 2021. The Court of Appeal ruled. The Supreme Court ruled. And now, finally, the FCA is considering redress. But after years of delay, rushing through a flawed scheme would be a disaster for consumers. 'For too long, claimant-focused firms like Sentinel Legal have raised the alarm. We've provided overwhelming evidence of lender misconduct, of deliberate overcharging, of systemic misselling. And that's largely fallen on deaf ears. 'The FCA must now engage with the firms who've been in the trenches, firms who've taken banks to court and won on behalf of consumers. To issue a consultation without first consulting those who exposed this injustice would be fundamentally unfair. 'We cannot have a redress scheme that's self-administered by the same banks who caused the problem in the first place. There must be proper checks and balances. Someone has to hold lenders accountable. That role has, until now, been filled only by law firms and that has to change. 'So our message to the FCA is simple: don't rush. Do what's right. Engage fully with the evidence, with the firms who know the landscape, and with the people who've been fighting for justice since the start. That's how you deliver a redress scheme that is fair, credible and aligned with the reality of what consumers have been through.'
