The U.S. legal system’s inconsistencies are having profound effects on the functioning of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Recent judicial rulings have questioned the constitutionality of NLRB procedures, undermining the protections afforded by labor laws. This legal ambiguity has left workers’ rights in limbo, creating an environment where justice and enforcement are dependent on judicial interpretations that vary by region and political alignment.
The Timeline of Key Legal Rulings
On July 23, 2023, Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas granted SpaceX a preliminary injunction (PI) against the NLRB, marking a pivotal moment in the debate over the agency’s constitutionality. The judge’s rationale centered on the belief that the NLRB’s structure impedes the President’s ability to enforce the law, a responsibility outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Albright argued that since NLRB members and administrative law judges (ALJs) are difficult to dismiss, the agency itself is likely unconstitutional. His ruling signified a significant blow to the NLRB’s authority.
Following Albright’s decision, other judges have echoed similar judgments. On July 29, 2023, Judge Vincent Brown of the Southern District of Texas granted a similar injunction for Energy Transfer, aligning his decision with the SpaceX ruling. Both cases were based on precedent from the Fifth Circuit’s Jarkesy decision, which declared that ALJs at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are also unconstitutionally protected from dismissal.
However, not all courts have followed this trajectory. On September 9, 2023, Judge Laurie Michelson of the Eastern District of Michigan denied a PI requested by YAPP, a company seeking similar relief from NLRB procedures. Michelson invoked earlier Supreme Court rulings, including Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which affirmed the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of administrative agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Michelson also referenced Lucia v. SEC to support her stance that ALJs could retain protection under the law.
On September 16, 2023, Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of Aunt Bertha, granting yet another PI against the NLRB based on the same constitutional concerns raised in the Texas courts.
The Impact of Conflicting Decisions
The conflicting judicial decisions raise a larger question about the broader U.S. legal system: How can the same constitutional provisions lead to drastically different outcomes, depending on which judge presides over a case? This unpredictability is not just a theoretical issue. The practical consequences are immense, as these rulings have effectively stripped millions of American workers of their labor rights in certain regions of the country.
The question of whether NLRB members and ALJs can be dismissed at the will of the President now hangs in the balance. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on the constitutionality of these positions, labor rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) may be severely weakened in areas where judges rule against the NLRB.
Why These Rulings Matter
The most immediate impact of these judicial decisions appears small at first glance. The President already has the authority to appoint NLRB members, which generally ensures alignment with the sitting administration’s policies. However, the ability to fire NLRB members and ALJs is a step further in presidential control, one that is unlikely to be frequently exercised but nevertheless alters the balance of power between the executive and administrative bodies.
Beyond the technicalities, these rulings are emblematic of a deeper issue in constitutional law interpretation. The phrase “take care,” found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, does not explicitly address the dismissal of ALJs or NLRB members. In a functional legal system, this would be recognized, leaving the creation of laws to Congress. Yet, judicial supremacy, combined with the inherent vagueness of constitutional language, enables judges to exert significant control over legislative and executive functions.
The judicial rulings in Texas demonstrate how political preferences shape constitutional interpretation. Republican-appointed judges in Texas have read the phrase “take care” to weaken the administrative state, particularly labor law, while Democratic-appointed judges, such as Michelson, have upheld the existing protections in place for NLRB members and ALJs.
The Future of Labor Rights
The broader implications of these rulings are stark. The NLRA’s protections have been effectively repealed in some jurisdictions, leaving workers without critical legal safeguards until the Supreme Court clarifies the constitutionality of ALJs and NLRB members. This process could take years, during which time workers will remain in legal limbo, unable to fully exercise their labor rights.
Congress could intervene by amending the NLRA to explicitly allow the President to fire NLRB members and ALJs. However, legislative gridlock makes such a move unlikely. Instead, the U.S. legal system remains dysfunctional, with tens of millions of workers stripped of their rights as judges debate the interpretation of constitutional clauses.
Conclusion
The ongoing legal battles over the NLRB reveal deep fractures within the U.S. legal system. Judges’ varying interpretations of constitutional law have left labor rights precariously positioned, with millions of workers bearing the brunt of these legal uncertainties. Until either Congress or the Supreme Court acts, the protections once afforded by the NLRA will remain suspended in regions where judges rule against the NLRB, reflecting the dysfunctional nature of the U.S. legal system.