American Home Furnishings Alliance, Mississippi Economic Council, and Mississippi Manufacturers Association v. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Amicus Curiae Brief of Separation of Powers Clinic in Support of Petitioners

32 Pages Posted: 27 Feb 2023 Last revised: 27 Jan 2024

See all articles by R. Trent McCotter

R. Trent McCotter

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School

Jamieson Knopf

George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

Justin Myers

George Mason University - George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal; George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

Raymond Yang

George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

Date Written: February 17, 2023

Abstract

The Supreme Court has held that Article II’s vesting of executive power in the President, who must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” provides the President with the power to remove most principal executive officers at will. The Court has also held that Humphrey’s Executor v. United States established only a narrow exception to that principle “for multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial executive power,” a descriptor the Court applied to the Federal Trade Commission as it was understood to operate in 1935 when Humphrey’s Executor was issued.


The Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) have long enjoyed statutory removal protections, and—under Humphrey’s Executor and Seila Law—those protections are constitutional only if the CPSC does not “wield substantial executive power.” But the CPSC possesses and exercises significant executive powers far beyond those the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) was understood to wield at the time of Humphrey’s Executor. The CPSC can file civil suits and administrative proceedings seeking crippling damages and injunctions, and can also issue binding regulations, as relevant here. The CPSC has not been shy about exercising these powers, which the Supreme Court has labeled as quintessentially executive. Accordingly, the CPSC exercises substantial executive power, and the Humphrey’s Executor exception to the President’s at-will removal power cannot apply to the CPSC Commissioners.

Keywords: Separation of Powers, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Executive Power, Appointments Clause, Independent Agencies, Humphrey's Executor, Precedent

JEL Classification: H1, H10, H11, K23, Z18, G38

Suggested Citation

McCotter, R. Trent and Knopf, Jamieson and Myers, Justin and Yang, Raymond, American Home Furnishings Alliance, Mississippi Economic Council, and Mississippi Manufacturers Association v. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Amicus Curiae Brief of Separation of Powers Clinic in Support of Petitioners (February 17, 2023). Gray Center Separation of Powers Brief 23-02, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4369739

R. Trent McCotter (Contact Author)

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Jamieson Knopf

George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Justin Myers

George Mason University - George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Raymond Yang

George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
56
Abstract Views
366
Rank
792,564
PlumX Metrics