(MENAFN) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that President Donald Trump had the authority to dismiss three Democratic members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety of consumer goods such as electronics, batteries, and toys.

Though the ruling was brief and lacked a detailed explanation, it aligned with a recent court trend that favors presidential control over leadership in independent federal agencies.

Under existing federal regulations, officials serving on the Consumer Product Safety Commission are typically protected from dismissal unless they engage in serious wrongdoing. However, Trump dismissed the three members without offering any justification, and the court temporarily upheld his authority to do so.

The decision sparked disagreement from the court's liberal wing. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced strong opposition, arguing that the ruling undermines the autonomy of agencies specifically designed to remain insulated from political influence.

“Congress wanted this agency to work without pressure from one party or one president,” Kagan wrote, according to a news agency.

The ousted commissioners — Mary T. Boyle, Richard L. Trumka Jr., and Alexander Hoehn-Saric — claimed they were removed due to their policy decisions, including efforts to prohibit dangerous batteries and resistance to staff reductions.

A lower court had previously ruled their termination unlawful, citing a precedent from the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established protections for members of independent agencies. That ruling had briefly allowed the officials to return to their positions.

The Supreme Court’s latest decision effectively overturns that lower court ruling, at least for now. The case could be reconsidered in the future for a more comprehensive review.

Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court has increasingly granted the presidency broader control over federal agencies traditionally viewed as independent. In an earlier opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that presidents should maintain authority over officials who wield executive power. Some justices have also indicated they may be willing to revisit — or even overturn — the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent entirely.

MENAFN24072025000045017281ID1109841387