The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive victory to President Trump on Wednesday, issuing an emergency order that permits him to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The ruling marks the second time in recent months that the Court has allowed Trump’s dismissals of officials from independent federal agencies to proceed, reinforcing his broader effort to expand presidential authority.

The justices’ unsigned order overturned a lower court injunction that had temporarily reinstated Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. while ongoing litigation challenged their removal. All three appointees served under former President Biden and were dismissed earlier this year—without Trump providing a reason.

In their brief ruling, the conservative majority referenced a similar case from May, when the Court permitted Trump to oust officials from two other independent agencies. Because the CPSC did not differ “in any pertinent respect,” the majority said the same reasoning applied.

“Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,” the order stated.

The three Democratic-appointed justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—issued a public dissent, strongly criticizing the Court’s direction. They warned that the majority’s decisions risk dismantling long-standing protections designed to keep independent agencies free from direct political pressure.

Kagan wrote that the ruling “negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence,” arguing that the Court’s actions incrementally shift power from Congress to the Executive Branch. “By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece,” she cautioned. “Respectfully, I dissent.”

For President Trump, the order represents a swift and meaningful legal triumph. Since returning to office, he has aggressively challenged statutory limits on removing independent agency officials, arguing that these constraints violate the constitutional separation of powers. His administration is now openly contesting a nearly century-old Supreme Court precedent that has allowed Congress to insulate regulatory agencies from direct presidential control.

Trump’s legal team achieved a similar win earlier this year when the Court allowed him to replace National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris. The CPSC case now reinforces the trend: the Court is increasingly willing to let Trump exercise broad removal powers while legal battles unfold.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that some lower courts have been disregarding the Supreme Court’s recent guidance. He specifically pointed to U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox’s ruling, which temporarily blocked the dismissal of the three CPSC commissioners and required the administration to restore them while litigation continued. Sauer urged the Supreme Court not only to intervene but to take the case up on its full docket to settle the issue definitively.

“The sooner this Court resolves the merits of this application and decides foundational questions about the scope of the President’s removal authority, the better,” Sauer wrote. However, a majority of justices declined to take the extraordinary step of immediately reviewing the case in full. Instead, they allowed the removals to stand but sent the matter back to the lower court for further consideration.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, wrote separately to say he would have gone further. He expressed concern that continued uncertainty around the legal standard could lead to confusion among lower courts and future administrations. Kavanaugh argued that when the Court is considering whether to reverse or narrow a long-standing precedent, extra time in the lower courts is of little value. “Further percolation,” he wrote, “is not particularly useful.”

The CPSC commissioners, represented by the advocacy group Public Citizen, had urged the Court not to step in. They argued that the administration had not met the legal standard for emergency relief, emphasizing that the officials had already resumed their duties under the lower court’s injunction. “The government now asks this Court to disrupt the status quo,” the group’s attorneys wrote, contending that Trump’s team had not demonstrated irreparable harm.

Federal law currently provides that CPSC commissioners may be removed only for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” These protections are intended to preserve the agency’s independence and shield its leaders from political retaliation. Similar standards apply across a handful of other independent regulators, many of which were created during the New Deal era to safeguard public interests from partisan swings.

With Wednesday’s ruling, that longstanding framework is increasingly in question. As Trump pushes for broader presidential authority and the Supreme Court signals openness to reevaluating older precedents, independent agencies across Washington may soon face profound structural changes.

The CPSC case now returns to the lower courts—but the Supreme Court’s message is clear: for now, President Trump’s removals will stand.