Consum Research v. Consum Prod Sfty, 91 F.4th 342

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is an independent federal agency, structured as a five-member board, whose members can only be removed by the President for cause.
By Two, L.P. and Consumers’ Research submitted FOIA requests to the CPSC, were denied certain information and fee waivers, and challenged the Commission’s structure as violating Article II separation of powers.
Plaintiffs argued CPSC’s for-cause removal protections are unconstitutional following the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Seila Law, because CPSC exercises substantial executive power.
The District Court sided with plaintiffs, holding CPSC’s structure unconstitutional and issuing a declaratory judgment.
The CPSC appealed, arguing existing Supreme Court precedent (notably Humphrey’s Executor) still controls.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding Humphrey’s Executor remains binding on multimember agencies like CPSC, and that more than just for-cause removal is required for a constitutional violation.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument (By Two)	Defendant’s Argument (CPSC)	Held
Does for-cause removal of CPSC members violate separation of powers?	Yes—Seila Law requires at-will removal for agencies exercising substantial executive power.	No—Humphrey’s Executor still permits for-cause removal for multimember independent agencies like CPSC.	No violation; Humphrey’s Executor remains controlling.
Standing for constitutional claim	By Two has a concrete interest due to denied requests/fees and the right to a constitutional agency.	By Two lacks a particularized injury and only asserts generalized grievances.	By Two has standing due to a concrete interest and alleged separation-of-powers violation.
Applicability of Humphrey’s Executor exception	Inapplicable since CPSC now performs executive functions unlike 1935 FTC.	Exception applies to all structurally similar independent agencies, not just FTC.	Exception applies; CPSC fits the precedent’s mold.
Does Seila Law overrule or limit Humphrey’s Executor for multimember agencies?	Yes, limits or implicitly overrules for agencies with executive power.	No, Seila Law only addresses single-director agencies; explicitly leaves Humphrey’s in place.	Seila Law did not overrule Humphrey’s for multimember agencies.

Humphrey’s Ex’r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (upheld Congress’s authority to restrict presidential removal of commissioners in multimember independent agencies)
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) (held for-cause removal protection unconstitutional for single-director agency, but left Humphrey's intact for multimember bodies)
Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (limited, but did not overrule, Humphrey’s; focused on insulation from executive control)
Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) (recognized the need for a concrete interest when alleging a structural constitutional violation)