Sport Investors League
  • Politics
  • Stocks
  • Investing
  • Business

Sport Investors League

  • Politics
  • Stocks
  • Investing
  • Business
Politics

Federal safety rule on baby cushions goes too far, contradicts Trump agenda, legal group claims

by admin March 14, 2025
March 14, 2025
Federal safety rule on baby cushions goes too far, contradicts Trump agenda, legal group claims

A baby products manufacturer is challenging a new federal regulation as overly broad and contrary to President Donald Trump’s agenda of reigning in three-letter agencies and commissions. 

New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed suit Thursday in Washington, D.C. against the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) over a new federal safety standard for infant support cushions. NCLA, on behalf of Heroes Technology, says the commission misinterprets the term ‘durable’ in the provision to include items not previously covered by the standard, like cushions and other such products. 

NCLA argues that the CPSC previously only included items that fell squarely within the accepted definition of ‘durable’ as delineated by congressional statute – cribs, for example, as well as high chairs, swings and other products.

‘We think that this is a pure case of statutory construction that guides agency authority and over here they step their bounds,’ Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel at NCLA, told Fox News Digital. 

Rollins said that, via the provision in question, the commission is ‘shortcutting and bypassing really important procedural checks, evidentiary requirements in order to push out a regulation faster.’

NCLA had previously sent CPSC a letter requesting a stay of the rule, saying that it ‘establishes an arbitrary and ineffective safety standard.’ NCLA sought ‘postponement and reconsideration’ in light of one of Trump’s executive orders ordering all executive agencies and departments to halt issuing new rules and regulations pending review and approval. 

‘The president has said to these agencies, ‘You must do X’, and it’s not clear that they’re actually following through with what’s required of them,’ Rollins said. 

Rollins said that the rule not only affects Heroes Technology but also extends to ‘thousands of manufacturers [and] thousands of manufacturing jobs’ both in and outside the U.S.

‘It’s emblematic,’ Rollins said of the broader implications of the rule. ‘When an agency is not held to account, when it’s not held to the standards set out by the statute, or is independent and doesn’t answer to the president in its own mind, then these sorts of self-aggrandizements tend to occur.’

Rollins said that while the rule applies to a specific sector of businesses and products, ‘there’s not really anything that stops it from sort of infiltrating further unless there’s a check on their power.’

‘And one thing we’re very clear on is that it’s not that we don’t think our clients’ products can’t be regulated or shouldn’t be regulated, but how Congress said they should be regulated,’ Rollins said. ‘Congress said if you’re a durable infant good, everything else has to go through the process, and it’s our view that it should have went through the other process.’

Rollins and NCLA argue that infant cushions such as the ones in the case should undergo a separate process that ‘is more onerous, more rigorous, requires more data, more fact-finding.’

The suit comes as the Trump administration works to reel in the administrative state via executive orders, directives and legal challenges. In February, Trump signed one order in particular that requires federal agencies to evaluate all of their regulations that could violate the Constitution as the administration continues to prioritize slashing red tape. 

The administrative state was previously dealt a blow by the Supreme Court in 2024 when it overturned the Chevron doctrine. 

In the landmark decision, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court effectively scaled back administrative power by holding that ‘Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.’ The doctrine previously gave deference to an agency’s interpretation of a federal regulation. 

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Opawica Explorations’ Bazooka Project: A Key Potential Asset in Abitibi Gold Rush
next post
Small businesses barely survived Biden. They can’t wait for tariffs to fix things

Related Posts

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau to announce resignation as...

January 6, 2025

With 27 days until voting starts, ‘election season’...

August 10, 2024

Most Americans have never heard of Tim Walz,...

August 7, 2024

Harris unveils agenda to help Black men ‘get...

October 14, 2024

CNN finalizes rules for first Biden vs. Trump...

June 17, 2024

Trump’s tax hike proposal is ‘déjà vu’ of...

May 10, 2025

Biden set to address nation after pressured exit...

July 24, 2024

Former Republican US senator endorses Kamala Harris, says...

September 27, 2024

Trump so far has freed 11 hostages in...

February 15, 2025

Former Dem fundraiser sees ‘overwhelmingly positive’ response as...

January 14, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent

    • Market Maker Manipulation; Oops, They Did It Again!

      May 14, 2025
    • 50% of S&P 500 Stocks Just Turned Bullish – What Happens Next?

      May 14, 2025
    • Bullish Breadth Improvement Suggests Further Upside For Stocks

      May 14, 2025
    • Tariff Tensions Ease, Nasdaq Soars — But is SMH the Emerging Leader?

      May 14, 2025
    • Lawsuit tracker: New resistance battling Trump’s second term through onslaught of lawsuits taking aim at EOs

      May 14, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (926)
    • Investing (2,165)
    • Politics (2,682)
    • Stocks (1,008)
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: sportinvestorsleague.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 sportinvestorsleague.com | All Rights Reserved