This case arises from President Trump’s attempt to fire three federal officers from their roles as commissioners for an independent agency, the Consumer Product Safey Commission (CPSC), without providing the necessary reasons required by law.
The CPSC commissioners sued the Trump administration to be reinstated, arguing that the Trump administration lacked any authority to remove them absent a finding of “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” The Trump administration argued, to the contrary, that it had a constitutional authority to dismiss the commissioners at will and was not bound by the statutory limitations.
The District Court granted the commissioners’ motion for summary judgment and ordered that they be reinstated to their positions at the CPSC. The government appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Their appeal addresses the merits of the district court’s summary judgment decision and the scope of relief the court ordered.
Legal historian and Historians Council Member Professor Jane Manners filed an amicus brief centering on the history of the presidential removal authority. It argues that the President has no inherent authority to remove independent agency officers at will and that Congress can place certain limitations on the president. The brief surveys the history of these limitations, which were derived from a common law tradition, deployed by early American state legislatures, codified by Congress in the 19th century without any constitutional controversy, and adapted routinely to create new independent agencies throughout the 20th century.
