Legal Group Challenges Federal Safety Regulation on Infant Cushions, Alleges Overreach

Legal Group Challenges Federal Safety Regulation on Infant Cushions, Alleges Overreach

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: A baby products manufacturer has filed a suit against a new federal regulation, claiming it is too broad and contrary to the agenda set forth by former President Donald Trump, aimed at limiting the authority of federal agencies.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, known as NCLA, initiated legal action on Thursday in Washington, D.C., against the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC. The lawsuit revolves around a recent federal safety standard targeting infant support cushions. The NCLA represents Heroes Technology, asserting that the CPSC has misinterpreted the definition of “durable” to encompass items like cushions that the previous regulation did not cover.

NCLA contends that historically, the CPSC has applied the term “durable” strictly to items explicitly defined in congressional statutes. Products such as cribs, high chairs, and swings have been classified under this definition, but cushions are now controversially included.

Agency Authority Under Scrutiny

In statements to Fox News Digital, Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel at NCLA, emphasized the legal implications of this case. She believes the CPSC is exceeding its statutory authority. According to Rollins, “This is a clear case of statutory interpretation that should limit agency power, yet they have overstepped their bounds.”

Furthermore, Rollins noted that the provision in question allows the CPSC to bypass essential procedural checks and evidence requirements, which typically govern the regulatory process. This could jeopardize the safety standards that protect consumers and businesses.

NCLA had previously reached out to the CPSC with a request to pause the enforcement of the new rule. They argue that it establishes an arbitrary safety standard that lacks effectiveness. Additionally, they referred to one of Trump’s executive orders, which instructed federal agencies to halt the issuance of new regulations pending thorough review.

“The President has made it clear that agencies need to adhere to certain protocols, yet it appears they are not following through,” Rollins highlighted.

Wider Impact on Manufacturers

The implications of this legal battle extend beyond Heroes Technology. Rollins pointed out that the new regulation could impact thousands of manufacturers and their jobs, both within the United States and internationally. This potential ripple effect raises significant concerns about job security in the manufacturing sector.

Rollins stated, “This is emblematic of a larger issue. When agencies operate without oversight and do not adhere to statutes, they self-aggrandize, leading to potentially detrimental regulations.”

Concerns About Oversight

She elaborated that while the current rule specifically targets a niche market, nothing prevents it from expanding into broader regulatory areas without appropriate checks on agency power.

“The objective isn’t to prevent regulation of our clients’ products entirely, but to ensure that Congress’s directives for regulation are followed,” Rollins explained. “Congress stipulated that durable infant goods must undergo a defined regulatory process, and our contention is that this particular case should have followed that process.”

Demand for Rigorous Standards

The NCLA argues that infant cushions should be subjected to a more stringent regulatory framework that includes comprehensive data requirements and thorough fact-finding investigations. This perspective underscores their commitment to ensuring safety while advocating for due process within regulatory frameworks.

This legal challenge emerges amid the broader context of the Trump administration’s continuous efforts to restrain the power of administrative agencies through executive orders and legal action. Notably, in February, the former president signed an executive order compelling federal agencies to review all existing regulations for constitutional compliance, an initiative aimed at reducing bureaucratic red tape.

An earlier victory against expansive agency authority occurred in 2024 when the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case that curtailed administrative powers significantly. The court ruled that federal courts must utilize their judgment to ascertain whether agencies have acted within their established statutory authority, dramatically limiting the previously accepted deference given to agency interpretations of federal regulations.

Reporting contributed by Diana Stancy of Fox News Digital.