Filed Date: May 21, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the removal of three former Commissioners of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). On May 21, 2025, the commissioners filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against President Donald Trump, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Acting Chairman of CPSC. All three Plaintiffs had been nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate and were only removable "for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause." However, on May 8, 2025, two of the commissioners received emails from the Deputy Director of Presidential Personnel stating that their positions were terminated but giving no explanation. On May 9, the third commissioner attempted to enter his office at CPSC but was prevented. Eventually, the Acting Chairman of the CPSC called and informed him that his position had also been terminated. The plaintiffs alleged that their terminations were ultra vires and in excess of the President's constitutional and statutory authority and requested the court to declare the terminations unlawful and to enjoin the defendants from taking any action to effectuate them.
The case was assigned to District Judge Matthew J. Maddox. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on May 21, asking the court to reinstate them for the pendency of the litigation. After a hearing on May 27, the court declined to implement temporary or preliminary relief but set an expedited briefing schedule on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on June 13, 2025, rejecting the defendants' argument that the statutory "for-cause" restriction on the president's removal power was unconstitutional. The court found that the exception on the removal power articulated in Humphrey's Executor, where the Supreme Court "upheld tenure protections for officers of multimember bodies with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions," was relevant here. Even though the Supreme Court has "revisit[ed] and recast[ed] some views articulated in Humphrey's Executor," the court found that it remained good law and required the court to "examine the characteristics of the agency before the court." Therefore, the court turned to whether the Humphrey's Executor exception applied to the CPSC.
The court found that the CPSC fell within the Humphrey's Executor exception due to its characteristics. First, the CPSC is a "multi-member body of experts, balanced along partisan lines and appointed to serve staggered, seven-year terms," like the FTC, which was found constitutional in Humphrey's Executor. This structure was quite different from that of the CFPB with its single director, which was found unconstitutional in Seila Law. Second, the CPSC's functions also supported this conclusion, since the CPSC performed "quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial" functions like those of the FTC. The court also rejected the defendants' argument that CPSC's ability to prosecute civil and criminal enforcement actions in federal court distinguished it from the FTC, since the CPSC's ability to bring such actions "is restricted by the consent and involvement of the Attorney General, who is accountable to, and subject to at-will removal by, the President."
Finally, the court rejected the defendants' argument that the CPSC wielded such significant executive power as to remove it from the Humphrey's Executor exception, since an agency's structure must also be considered, and here the agency's structure strongly weighed in favor of finding the CPSC constitutional. The court therefore held that, given the "historical pedigree" of CPSC's structure as an "independent agency headed by a multimember board or commission," the "for-cause" tenure protection was constitutional.
Given these findings, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, issuing a declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs were unlawfully removed and a permanent injunction reinstating the plaintiffs to their positions as CPSC commissioners. 2025 WL 1677099.
On June 16, the defendants appealed the court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and asked Judge Maddox to stay his order pending the result of their appeal. The defendants also filed a motion in the Fourth Circuit asking for an immediate administrative stay and for a stay pending appeal.
Judge Maddox denied the defendants' motion for a stay on June 23, finding that the "Defendants offer no new evidence or argument to persuade the Court that it erred in its ruling" on the plaintiffs' summary judgment. Therefore, the court found the defendants unlikely to prevail on the merits of their argument and denied the motion to stay.
On July 1, the Fourth Circuit also denied the request for a stay. Without elaborating on its reasoning, the court denied both the request for an immediate administrative stay and a stay pending appeal. In concurrence, Judge Wynn rejected the defendants' argument that Humphrey's Executor had been overruled, stating that, as "the district court thoroughly explained, the Commission’s statutory removal protections remain constitutional under Humphrey’s Executor and its progeny. That precedent remains binding on this Court unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it."
On July 2, the government went to the Supreme Court, repeating its request for a stay pending appeal and for an immediate administrative stay. The government argued that the Supreme Court's stay in Wilcox v. Trump, where the Court stayed injunctions ordering the reinstatement of members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), should be controlling in this case as well, since the board members here also exercise considerable executive power, "for instance, by issuing rules, adjudicating administrative proceedings, issuing subpoenas, bringing enforcement suits seeking civil penalties, and (with the concurrence of the Attorney General) even prosecuting criminal cases." The government also pointed to the harm it would suffer if the board members were allowed to remain during the pendency of the litigation, since the removed board members would, and already have since their restatement, act against President Trump's agenda. "Given the disruption at the CPSC ensuing from on-and-off reinstatement and termination of Commissioners comprising a majority of the agency," the government requested a stay. The plaintiffs filed their response to the government's request for an immediate administrative stay that same day.
The Supreme Court agreed with the government on July 23 and granted a stay pending appeal and any petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court held that the "application is squarely controlled by Trump v. Wilcox. Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases." Here, the Court found that the case was equivalent to the facts of Wilcox, where the Court held that "the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty." Since the CPSC exercises "executive power in a similar manner" to the National Labor Relations Board at issue in Wilcox, the Court found that the same result should be reached here. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Scott Shuchart (5/22/2025)
Jeremiah Price (6/16/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70327649/parties/boyle-v-trump/
Garlock, Stephanie (Maryland)
Aguilar, Daniel
Freeman, Mark R.
General, Brett A.
McArthur, Eric Dean
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70327649/boyle-v-trump/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 4:18 p.m.
State / Territory: Maryland
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Appointments/Civil Service)
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 21, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three Biden-appointed, Senate-confirmed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Department of the Treasury (- United States (national) -), Federal
Office of Management and Budget (- United States (national) -), Federal
Consumer Product Safety Commission (Montgomery), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2025 - None
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: