The NLRB Is Hamstrung by the Dysfunctional US Legal System

Thanks to a corporate challenge to the National Labor Relations Board’s constitutionality, labor protections for tens of millions of workers have effectively been repealed until the Supreme Court can weigh in on the meaning of two words in the Constitution.

National Labor Relations Board As It Proposes To Make Student Workers Ineligible to Unionize

National Labor Relations Board headquarters in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2019. (Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images)


On July 23 of this year, Judge Alan Albright (Republican, Western District of Texas) granted SpaceX’s request for a preliminary injunction (PI) against a run-of-the-mill unfair labor practice proceeding initiated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the company.

Albright’s reasoning for granting the PI was that (1) Article II of the US constitution requires that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” (2) the president cannot do so with respect to the NLRB because the NLRB members and administrative law judges (ALJs) are too difficult to fire, and therefore (3) the NLRB’s structure is likely unconstitutional and it would cause irreparable harm to SpaceX to be subjected to the NLRB administrative process.

This analysis echoes similar analysis from the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jarkesy, which held that the ALJs of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are also unconstitutionally difficult to fire. Jarkesy itself is based on the Supreme Court decisions in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (unconstitutionally difficult to fire the head of the CFPB) and Collins v. Yellen (unconstitutionally difficult to fire the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency).

This article is for subscribers only. Please login or subscribe to access our full archives and beautiful print and digital magazine starting at just $3 a month.