Summary
This Tenth Circuit opinion reviews a petition challenging the Consumer Product Safety Commission's final rule regulating small, high-powered magnets due to severe injury risks when ingested by children. The court evaluates whether the rule is supported by substantial evidence under the Consumer Product Safety Act and addresses a structural constitutional challenge to the agency. Finding that the Commission's cost-benefit analysis was reasonable and adequately explained, and that the agency's structure is constitutional, the court denies the petition for review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the CPSC's final rule is supported by substantial evidence under the APA.
- Whether the CPSC's removal‑protection provisions violate the separation of powers.
Holdings
- The final rule is supported by substantial evidence; the petition is denied.
- The Commission's removal protections are constitutional; the petition is denied.
Key quotations
“Because this rule is supported by substantial evidence and the structure of the Commission is constitutional, we deny the petition.” (at 1150–51)
“The Commission’s balancing test revealed that the benefits of the rule far outweigh its costs.” (at 1150–51)
Factual background
Small, high‑powered magnets sold for jewelry, puzzles, and other consumer uses can be ingested by children, causing tissue necrosis, perforation, sepsis, and death. Injuries have risen since the prior CPSC rule was vacated, prompting the agency to adopt a new rule limiting size, strength, and requiring safety measures.
Procedural history
The Tenth Circuit previously struck down the CPSC's 2014 rule in Zen Magnets, LLC v. CPSC. The Commission issued a new final rule in 2022. Petitioners filed a petition for review challenging the rule's cost‑benefit analysis and the Commission's structural constitutionality. The court reviewed the rule under the APA and the removal‑protection issue de novo.