Leachco v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 103 F.4th 748

Background

Leachco, Inc., the plaintiff, is an Oklahoma company subject to administrative proceedings by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) related to its “Podster” infant lounger after it was involved in two infant deaths.
The CPSC is an independent federal agency led by five commissioners, each removable by the President for neglect of duty or malfeasance only, and adjudications are typically presided over by administrative law judges (ALJs) also protected from at-will removal.
Leachco challenged the constitutionality of the removal protections for CPSC commissioners and ALJs, arguing these violated Article II and the separation of powers.
Leachco sought a preliminary injunction to halt administrative proceedings while litigating the constitutional claims in federal court.
The district court denied the injunction, finding Leachco failed to show irreparable harm from simply having to proceed before the allegedly unconstitutional agency; Leachco appealed.
The sole issue on appeal was whether Leachco’s alleged constitutional injury or being forced into proceedings before this agency sufficed as irreparable harm for purposes of a preliminary injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do removal protections for CPSC commissioners violate Article II/separation of powers?	The limitations unconstitutionally restrict the President's removal power, rendering the agency structure unconstitutional.	The CPSC structure is consistent with Supreme Court-approved agency models; removal protections do not violate the Constitution.	No; precedent (including Humphrey's Executor) supports the constitutionality of such protections for multimember agencies.
Do ALJ removal protections violate Article II/separation of powers?	Double-layered removal protections for ALJs create unconstitutional insulation from Presidential control.	Adjudicative officers are different from policymaking officers; Supreme Court hasn't found ALJ protections unconstitutional.	No; case law and reasoning (e.g., Decker Coal) support ALJ protection where functions are purely adjudicatory.
Does being subjected to proceedings before an allegedly unconstitutional agency constitute irreparable harm?	Yes; having to appear before such an agency is per se irreparable constitutional injury.	No; current precedent requires specific harm, not just a structural violation, and Leachco has not shown harm due to the structure.	No; mere subjection to such a proceeding, by itself, is insufficient for irreparable harm under 10th Cir. and Supreme Court precedent.
Does Supreme Court's jurisdictional analysis in Axon or Seila Law change what counts as irreparable harm?	Yes; language shows 'here-and-now injury' sufficient for irreparable harm/injunction.	No; those cases relate only to standing and jurisdiction, not entitlement to injunctive relief, which remains governed by other tests.	No; Axon and Seila Law do not alter the requirement under Collins that actual harm must be shown for relief.

Key Cases Cited

General Motors Corp. v. Urb. Gorilla, 500 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2007) (irreparable harm is required for preliminary injunction)
Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (extraordinary remedy; clear right to relief needed for injunction)
Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (upheld removal restrictions for multimember independent agencies)
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) (good cause removal protections for inferior officers are generally constitutional)
Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (double-layered removal protections problematic for some non-adjudicative officers; left ALJ question open)
Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) (constitutional violation in removal provision alone doesn’t entitle to relief unless actual harm shown)
Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) (single-director removal protections unconstitutional; distinction made for multimember agencies)