“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
In a shadow docket order issued on July 23, the Supreme Court’s MAGA majority issued yet another ruling handing Trump the power to break the law. In Trump v. Boyle, the majority let Trump’s firing of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission without cause, in direct and undisputed violation of congressional statute, remain in effect while the commissioners’ lawsuit against Trump proceeds.
What was this case about?
Congress created the CPSC in 1972 to protect American consumers. In order to best ensure that the agency pursue the public interest, Congress created it to be bipartisan and insulated from undue political pressure. No more than three of its five commissioners can be of the same political party. In addition, the president cannot fire a commissioner without cause. This type of independent agency was held to be constitutional in a major 1935 case called Humphrey’s Executor.
In May, President Trump illegally fired the Commission’s three Democratic members: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. Under the statute creating the CPSC and Supreme Court precedent, Trump’s action was clearly illegal. The commissioners sued and a federal district court ordered the administration to restore them to their positions while their lawsuit was pending. That order was upheld by the First Circuit.
Trump then asked the Supreme Court to reverse the district court and let the firings remain in effect while the lawsuit over them proceeds.
What did the Court majority do and why is it harmful?
In a shadow docket decision with minimal explanation, the Court ruled for Trump. The majority claimed that its decision was “squarely controlled” by a May 2025 shadow docket decision in Trump v. Wilcox. That order let Trump’s firings of the Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board officials remain in effect during litigation. (We discussed this order when it was released.)
Justice Kagan (joined by Sotomayor and Jackson) sharply dissented. She noted that the majority “has all but overturned Humphrey’s Executor” and done so “with the scantiest of explanations.” Its “sole professed basis” for its decision was the Wilcox shadow docket order, which itself was “minimally (and as I have previously shown, poorly) explained.” The result is yet another decision made with “little time, scant briefing, and no argument” overriding Congress’s judgment on how to structure important agencies.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence basically acknowledging that the majority intends to overrule Humphrey’s Executor. He would have let the case totally bypass the lower courts and gone straight to the Supreme Court on the merits so they can overrule that case.
Structuring agencies to be independent is a vital and time-honored way to protect the American people. And holding the president accountable to the rule of law is an even more central component of protecting our freedom. This continues the dangerous trend of the collaborators on the Court helping Trump attack our freedom.
The case illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges and justices on the federal bench.