Emergency application

Presidential power to fire officials

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Mary Boyle

Granted

No. 25A11Stay applicationFiled by the federal governmentPresented to The Chief JusticeFrom United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

What did the Court do?

The Court granted the request on July 23, 2025: the lower court's ruling is on hold while the appeal continues.

Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case. Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Jackson would have ruled the other way.

Filed July 2, 2025Ruled July 23, 202521 days after filing

What's being asked

The federal government asks the Court to pause a Maryland federal court order allowing three Consumer Product Safety Commission commissioners to resume their duties. President Trump sent notices purporting to remove the commissioners without cause. The lower court found those removals unlawful because federal law allows removal only for neglect of duty or serious wrongdoing. The government argues the Constitution lets the President remove the commissioners at will.

What the Court did

The Court gave the government emergency help by granting (approving) its request and putting the Maryland order on hold (staying it). The pause does not decide who wins; it lasts through the Fourth Circuit appeal and any timely Supreme Court review. Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the result for different reasons (concurred); Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson disagreed (dissented).

Concurred in a separate opinion
Dissented
Wrote separately
Vote not published

Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately: Kavanaugh
Dissenting · 3recorded against the Court's order: Sotomayorjoined Kagan's writing
Kaganwrote a dissent
Jacksonjoined Kagan's writing
Vote not published · 5the order does not say how they voted: Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Gorsuch
Barrett

The order records the positions of 4 of 9 justices. The Court usually does not say how each justice voted on an emergency application, so the rest are shown as not published.

Half of 82 rulings on applications where the Court asked for a response came 10 to 26 days after filing, and the median was 17 days; this one was ruled on 21 days after filing.

What it means

The pause temporarily blocks the district court's order allowing the commissioners to resume their duties; it does not settle their legal claims. The appeal continues in the Fourth Circuit; the docket lists no related Supreme Court case on the main legal question and no argument date.

Separate writings

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, dissenting
July 23, 2025
Read (PDF)

Sources

Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 25A11. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.

Checked October 4, 2026

Docket timeline

FiledJul 2, 2025
Application (25A11) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Application (PDF)Appendix (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Response requestedJul 2, 2025
Response to application (25A11) requested by The Chief Justice, due by 4p.m. (EDT) on July 11, 2025.
ResponseJul 2, 2025
Response to request for administrative stay from respondent Mary Boyle, et al. filed.
Response (PDF)
ResponseJul 11, 2025
Response to application from respondent Mary Boyle, et al. filed.
Response (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
ReplyJul 14, 2025
Reply of applicant Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed.
Reply (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Docket entryJul 18, 2025
Letter of applicant Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed.
Document 1 (PDF)
Referred to the full CourtJul 23, 2025
Application (25A11) referred to the Court.
Docket entryJul 23, 2025
Letter of applicant Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed.
Document 1 (PDF)
OrderJul 23, 2025
Application (25A11) for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The application is squarely controlled by Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U. S. ___ (2025). 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 stay we issued in Wilcox reflected “our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.” Ibid. (slip op., at 1). The same is true on the facts presented here, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect. The June 13, 2025, order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 8:25–cv–01628, ECF Doc. 25, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of the Court. Justice Kavanaugh concurs. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a11_2cp3.pdf'>Opinion</a>). Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, dissents. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/606US2PP_Ord.pdf#page=70'>Opinion</a>)
21 days after filing
OrderJul 23, 2025
Application (25A11) for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The application is squarely controlled by Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U. S. ___ (2025). 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 stay we issued in Wilcox reflected “our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.” Ibid. (slip op., at 1). The same is true on the facts presented here, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect. The June 13, 2025, order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 8:25–cv–01628, ECF Doc. 25, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of the Court. Justice Kavanaugh concurs. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, dissents.
21 days after filing
Order (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)

The case below

Ruling under review: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 25-1687
Filings: The application (PDF)Appendix with the lower-court ruling (PDF)