Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Heroes Technology v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

CASE SUMMARY

NCLA asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to stay the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s mandatory Safety Standard for Infant Support Cushions regulating Heroes Technology’s one-of-a-kind Snuggle Me Infant Lounger and thousands of other products.

The Consumer Product Safety Act  allows CPSC to use an expedited rulemaking process when it promulgates mandatory safety standards governing durable products for children under 5 years old, like cribs or strollers. If the product is not a durable infant or toddler product, it must follow the traditional, more exacting regulatory process. CPSC used the expedited durable goods process to create its new Rule for “infant support cushions,” a product category that did not previously exist. But Snuggle Me Infant Loungers, a product made of organic cotton and polyester fiber that parents use to gently hold their infants, are textiles, which are not generally considered durable goods. CPSC thus had no authority to promulgate the mandatory rule governing these products using the expedited process. Congress has stated it prefers voluntary product safety standards, yet the Rule allows CPSC to claim power over a major market segment instead of crafting product-specific voluntary standards with Heroes Technology and other eager industry partners.

Despite Heroes Technology and others raising serious concerns about producers’ ability to redesign their products and apply new and ill-defined testing methods as the Rule requires, the agency declared the regulation would be effective on May 5, 2025, just 180 days after it was promulgated. This was certainly not “reasoned decisionmaking” by CPSC, making the Rule arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agency actions to be “reasonable and reasonably explained.” The Snuggle Me Organic Infant Lounger is highly regarded and sought after by parents and caregivers. Heroes Technology has taken costly steps to comply with the Rule, but the product may still be eliminated.

OUR CLIENT

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer
Kara Rollins
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Andreia Trifoi
Constitutional Litigation Fellow

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Opposed Motion for Stay Pending Review

March 13, 2025 | Read More

Record of Consumer Product Safety Commission Action

March 5, 2025 | Read More

Re: Supplemental Request to Postpone the Effective Date of Safety Standard for Infant Support Cushions, 89 Fed. Reg. 87,467 (Nov. 4, 2024)

February 20, 2025 | Read More

Re: Request to Postpone the Effective Date of Safety Standard for Infant Support Cushions, 89 Fed. Reg. 87,467 (Nov. 4, 2024)

February 6, 2025 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Asks D.C. Circuit to Stop Consumer Product Safety Comm.’s Illegal Infant Support Cushion Rule

March 14, 2025 | Read More

RELATED CASES
  • 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
  • Aposhian v. Garland

    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.

    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.

    Guidance Abuse

    Agency guidance is easier to promulgate than formal rules and regulations, so agencies prefer to issue it. Such “guidance” supplies relatively informal indications of how an agency interprets rules and statutes. Although guidance is not permitted to bind Americans (unlike laws made by elected legislators), agencies treat guidance as binding and courts often fail to stop them.

    Case Active - January 7, 2019

    Agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

    View Case
  • Howard and Karen Baldwin v. United States

    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.

    Case Closed - February 24, 2020

    Agencies: Internal Revenue Service

    View Case
  • Marcus Broadway v. United States

    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.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: U.S. Sentencing Commission

    View Case
  • Thomas H. Buffington v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    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: Department of Veterans Affairs

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

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