Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Dreamland Baby Co. v. CPSC, Commissioner Trumka, HHS, CDC, NIH

CASE SUMMARY

CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka’s has violated NCLA client Dreamland Baby Co.’s constitutional and statutory rights. Dreamland creates infant and toddler products. Trumka issued disparaging statements to the public and to retailers creating the false impression that the Commission has made a determination regarding weighted infant sleep products’ safety when it has not. NCLA demands an end to this illegal attack on the company.

Comr. Trumka’s unlawful adverse publicity campaign against Dreamland convinced multiple retailers to stop selling Dreamland’s products and has significantly impacted its ability to continue operations. Comr. Trumka made a proposal last fall to “pursue a mandatory standard to address foreseeable risks posed by” weighted infant sleep products. CPSC rejected that proposal by a 3-1 vote in November, with Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric saying the agency had not conducted enough research to pursue rulemaking on the issue in 2024.

Trumka sent retailers letters disparaging Dreamland’s products and issued a public statement saying retailers should consider stopping sales. These actions disregard the Consumer Product Safety Act’s required rulemaking processes, preference for voluntary standards, and show impermissible bias against Dreamland.

Dreamland CEO Tara Williams created their first weighted wearable sleep blanket sack for her son in his infancy. The woman-owned small business has gone on to help more than a million families worldwide. Dreamland is already working with industry counterparts, CPSC staff, and consumers to develop a voluntary standard including these products and other wearable blankets and swaddles. Trumka’s cancel-now-ask-questions-never approach harms families who seek safe and effective sleep solutions.

OUR CLIENT

OUR TEAM

Kara Rollins
Litigation Counsel
Jenin Younes
Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

November 19, 2024 | Read More

Re: Request by Dreamland Baby Co. for Retraction of Information Pursuant to Section 6(b)(7) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2055(b)(7), and 16 C.F.R. § 1101.52

July 23, 2024 | Read More

Notice of Request to Preserve All Documents and Electronically Stored Information as Defined by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 Regarding Dreamland Baby Co.

May 9, 2024 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Sues CPSC, Trumka, HHS, CDC, NIH for Illegal, Unfounded Attacks on Weighted Infant Sleep Products

November 20, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Demands CPSC and Comr. Trumka Rescind False Statements Disparaging Weighted Sleep Sacks

July 23, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Plans to Sue CPSC over Comm’r Trumka’s Illegal Efforts to Stop Sales of Weighted Sleep Sacks

May 9, 2024 | Read More

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.