CPSC's Barment of Lobbyist Is Sparse on Alleged Conduct

A CPSC barment letter restricting a lawyer/lobbyist from entering any of its premises identifies one alleged act occurring repeatedly, but that act is not explicitly prohibited by the regulation and statute cited. It is possible that CPSC is interpreting a listed prohibition as including the alleged behavior: contacting staff outside approved "communication channels." Moreover, the letter says justification includes those legal authorities not that it is limited to them. CPSC also alleges other unidentified conduct via adjectives: "abusive and disruptive."

The resulting October 20 lawsuit against CPSC by New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) contains three counts: two 1st Amendment and one 5th. On behalf of Bracewell's Ed Krenik, it alleges retaliation for his professional work that affected Acting Chairman Peter Feldman.

CPSC's August 28 barment letter to Krenik cites 6 CFR 139 and 40 USC 1315. It states:

"Your recent conduct has been determined to pose a credible threat to agency personnel and federal operations. Your repeated abusive and disruptive behavior, along with your continued attempts to contact staff using improper and unauthorized communication channels, constitute serious violations of federal property regulations and security directives."

Offenses listed in 6 CFR 139 run a minor-to-severe range that includes noise/odor nuisances, tobacco use, photographing/videoing, security interference, computer tampering, carrying unauthorized weapons, unsafe vehicle operation, and threats of violence, among others. While CPSC uses a phrase, credible threat, that often conveys severity, the letter contains no information to support such seriousness.

CPSC does not identify prohibited conduct – like security interference – that might include how people contact CPSC.

CPSC had not responded to a request for comment as of PSL press time. However, that was not surprising or even unexpected given the federal government's long-standing practice against commenting on cases outside court filings.

As for counter allegations against CPSC and Feldman, the complaint in DC US district court points to communication by Krenik with Feldman in fall 2025 on behalf of a client. Topics include Krenik questioning CPSC's alignment with administration priorities and stating that he planned to discuss his client's issue with White House personnel. There is no identification of Krenik's client or the issue he pursued.

The complaint says that White House staff later "admonished" Feldman and suggests he might have been "sensitive to criticism from White House personnel" for two reasons: a desire to become confirmed chairman and the change in presidential ability to fire commissioners without cause.

Of particular concern to Krenik, according to the complaint, is damage to his ability to lobby other agencies in the same building as CPSC's new headquarters in Washington, D.C. The barment letter extends the restrictions to outside CPSC-occupied "buildings," threatening arrest. The complaint emphasizes that the boundaries are not defined.

Also raised as harmful is the effect on Krenik's ability to create relationships with new commissioners Brien Lorenze and Karen Sessions. The complaint asserts that the timing of restrictions – at roughly the same time as the pair's confirmations – is evidence of a retaliatory barrier to Krenik's ability to communicate with them.

The 1st Amendment concerns include not just Krenik's but also his clients' rights to petition, says the complaint.