Does the for-cause restriction on the President's removal of CPSC Commissioners violate the separation of powers, and can such a violation constitute irreparable harm for preliminary injunctive relief?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED For over two years, Petitioner Leachco, Inc., has been subjected to an administrative proceeding by Respondent Consumer Product Safety Commission, an Executive Branch agency whose Commissioners cannot be removed by the President except for cause. Leachco, like petitioners in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175, 191 (2023), is thus suffering an ongoing here-and-now injury that will be “impossible to remedy” once the proceeding is over. To obtain “meaningful” judicial relief before it’s “too late,” id., Leachco sued in federal court for a preliminary injunction. But the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial and held (1) the Commissioners’ for-cause removal protections are likely constitutional and, regardless, (2) relief is precluded because, unlike violations of “individual” constitutional rights, violations of the separation of powers can never cause irreparable harm. The questions presented are: 1. Does the for-cause restriction on the President’s authority to remove the CPSC’s Commissioners violate the separation of powers? See Consumers’ Research v. CPSC, No. 28-1323, cert petition at i (June 14, 2024) (presenting substantively identical question). 2. Should Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), be overruled? 3. For purposes of relief, can a violation cause irreparable harm—as this Court and several circuits hold—or can violations never cause irreparable harm—as the Tenth Circuit alone holds?