President Trump’s administration seeks Supreme Court approval to dismiss three Biden-era consumer safety officials, escalating a legal battle over presidential authority and agency independence.

White House Appeals After Lower Courts Block Firings

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department submitted an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, aiming to overturn lower court rulings that blocked the removal of three consumer product safety regulators appointed under the previous administration. The case centers on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a five-member independent board responsible for setting safety standards for thousands of consumer goods.

The administration’s appeal follows recent setbacks in federal court, where Trump’s attempts to remove Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. were halted by judicial orders. All three were selected by former President Joe Biden to serve seven-year terms, with legal protections intended to shield them from arbitrary dismissal, limiting termination to instances of neglect or malfeasance.

The dispute began after President Trump sought to dismiss the regulators, citing their opposition to his administration’s agenda. In response, Boyle, Hoehn-Saric, and Trumka Jr. challenged the firings in court, arguing that the president’s actions violated statutory limits and the independence of the CPSC. A federal judge in Maryland sided with the officials, and an appellate court upheld the decision this week, prompting the administration’s urgent appeal to the nation’s highest court.

White House Criticizes Judicial Roadblocks

The White House sharply criticized what it called an ongoing campaign by activist judges to undermine presidential authority. “It’s outrageous that we must once again seek Supreme Court intervention because rogue leftist judges in lower courts continue to defy the high court’s clear rulings,” stated White House spokesperson Harrison Fields. “The Supreme Court decisively upheld the president’s constitutional authority to fire and remove executive officers exercising his power, yet this ongoing assault by activist judges undermines that victory.”

According to the Justice Department’s emergency filing, the continued service of the three regulators has created disorder within the CPSC and impeded the implementation of the administration’s policies. The appeal contends that the Supreme Court’s previous decision in Wilcox—where the justices sided with the Trump administration’s authority to fire two officials from other federal agencies—should apply directly to this case. Solicitor General John Sauer argued, “None of this should be possible after Wilcox, which squarely controls this case. Like the NLRB and MSPB in Wilcox, the CPSC exercises ‘considerable executive power’—for instance, by issuing rules, adjudicating administrative proceedings, issuing subpoenas, bringing enforcement suits seeking civil penalties, and even prosecuting criminal cases.”

The case has been submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for handling emergency applications from the appellate circuit involved. The Supreme Court’s response could have wide-ranging implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory agencies.

If the administration prevails, it would mark a significant shift in the longstanding protections enjoyed by independent federal regulators. For now, the dispute underscores the ongoing friction between the White House and the judiciary over the extent of presidential authority, as both sides brace for another high-stakes decision from the Supreme Court.