On October 2, 2025, President Donald Trump nominated William “Billy” Hewes III, a Republican politician from Mississippi, to serve as a Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, granted the Trump Administration’s request to stay a permanent injunction that had ordered the reinstatement of three Democratic CPSC Commissioners: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. (the “Commissioners”), after the Administration fired them from the independent agency without cause.
Background
On June 23, 2025, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion by President Donald J. Trump and other officials (“Defendants”) to stay his order reinstating three Democratic CPSC Commissioners: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. (the “Commissioners”). The motion, filed on June 16, 2025, sought to pause the court’s injunction, prohibiting any action to effectuate the Commissioners’ removal, while the case is appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Prior to the district court’s decision, Defendants filed an emergency motion for a stay with the Fourth Circuit on June 17, 2025, which was denied on July 1, 2025. The next day, the Trump Administration submitted an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal.
On Friday, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the removal of Democratic Commissioners from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) without cause was unlawful. This decision arises from a lawsuit filed by Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. against President Donald J.
Last week, we reported on the Trump Administration’s abrupt firing of all three Democratic Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or the “Commission”). At the time, the fired Commissioners expressed their intention to challenge their removal in court, with former Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. publicly stating, “See you in court, Mr. President.” Following through on that statement, legal proceedings have now begun.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a new rule on September 18, 2024, which will implement the first-ever federal safety standards for infant nursing pillows.[1] This rule comes in response to 154 infant deaths and 64 serious injuries believed to be caused by these products between 2010 and 2022.[2] These deaths commonly involved infants under 3 months old who were sleeping with the nursing pillows in locations such as adult beds, cribs, playpens, or couches.[3]
As the demand for clean energy and transportation grows, so does the need for rechargeable batteries. Lithium-ion batteries are widely used, from small toys to electric cars to large energy storage systems. While some lithium-ion batteries are already subject to regulations, rechargeable batteries used in “micro-mobility devices” such as electric bikes and scooters are currently not subject to any federal safety standards. Some advocates contend that a lack of regulation has led to an increase in fires caused by poor quality, defective batteries. According to a report by CBS News New York, defective lithium-ion batteries have allegedly resulted in 400 fires, 300 injuries, and 12 deaths between 2019 and 2023 in New York City alone.
Around the time that much of the United States was beginning to shut down in response to COVID-19, President Trump nominated Dr. Nancy B. Beck for Commissioner and Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). A review of Dr. Beck’s education and background shows that the vast majority of her career – over 15 years – has been spent in public service. Yet Dr. Beck’s nomination has been met with criticism of her roughly five years as a Director at the American Chemistry Council (ACC). For instance, the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee issued a press release which highlighted Dr. Beck’s time at the ACC and claimed that Dr. Beck was “doing the bidding of the chemical industry at the expense of the health and safety of the American public.” Likewise, the Washington Post and New York Times headlined articles about Dr. Beck with a description of her as a “chemical industry executive.” While it may be expected that Dr. Beck’s detractors would focus on her time at the ACC, media characterizations of her as a “chemical industry executive” do not accurately describe the whole of her professional efforts.