The court upheld injunctions blocking NLRB enforcement proceedings, ruling that the Board’s structure is likely unconstitutional because its members and administrative law judges are insulated from at-will removal by the President.
Translation: the President should be able to fire NLRB decision-makers at will.
If that logic stands, the implications go far beyond labor law. The same reasoning could be used against the SEC, FTC, CFPB, and virtually every independent agency Congress deliberately designed to operate outside direct political pressure.
Here’s why this decision is wrong:
Checks and balances matter.
Congress gave agencies like the NLRB independence so their enforcement of statutory rights wouldn’t swing wildly with every change in administration.
The Supreme Court has never gone this far.
While prior precedent has chipped away at some removal protections, extending those cases to multimember boards and ALJs ignores decades of precedent.
Chaos looms.
If every agency’s enforcement can be halted by constitutional challenges, employers, employees, and the public are left in limbo. Predictability in labor relations—something businesses usually want—gets replaced by constitutional roulette.
The Fifth Circuit has taken one company’s fight with the NLRB and turned it into a broadside attack on agency independence. Unless reversed, this isn’t just about weakening the NLRB—it’s about dismantling the framework that enforces workplace safety, consumer protection, and much, much more.
That’s not accountability. That’s destabilization.