Last month saw America's highest judicial body uphold President Donald Trump's removal of Democratic appointees from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

However, Trump may soon call upon the Supreme Court once again after a federal judge blocked his firing of three Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 

Judge: CPSC's tenure provisions do "not interfere with" Trump's Article II powers

According to Fox News, the three ousted Democratic CPSC members in question are Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr.

The trio challenged their removal in court, leading U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee, to conclude that their termination had been unlawful.

Maddox found that the CPSC's tenure provisions as well as its staggered-term structure do "not interfere with" the president's executive branch powers laid out in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

What's more, the judge attempted to draw a line of demarcation between the CPSC case and the Supreme Court's ruling regarding members of NLRB and MSPB.

Trump administration provided no cause for members' firing

Specifically, Maddox stressed that the Trump administration had not demonstrated neglect or malfeasance on the part of those who had been removed.

Biden-appointed judge thwarts Trump's attempt to clean house at consumer safety agency https://t.co/8qm3Wg6CE9

— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) June 14, 2025

"For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds no constitutional defect in the statutory restriction on Plaintiffs’ removal and that Plaintiffs’ purported removal from office was unlawful," Maddox wrote.

"The Court shall enter an Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion, denying Defendants’ motion, and providing declaratory and injunctive relief permitting Plaintiffs to resume their duties as CPSC Commissioners," the judge added.

Judge points to "disruption" in NLRB and MSPB cases

What's more, Maddox pointed to the potential for "disruption" when justifying his decision, and cited the NLRB and MSPB cases as evidence.

He noted how the plaintiffs in those cases were removed and then reinstated to the positions on multiple occasions as the issues were being litigated.

"Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again," Maddox argued.

"The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment," the judge insisted.