A significant ruling by a Texas federal judge has declared the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unconstitutional, specifically targeting the removal protections afforded to its administrative law judges (ALJs) and five-member board. This decision, handed down by Judge Amos Mazzant, directly challenges established NLRB practices and aligns with recent judicial scrutiny from the U.S. Supreme Court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, despite deeming key aspects of the NLRB’s framework unconstitutional, Judge Mazzant declined to halt the board’s prosecution of Aimbridge Employee Service Corp., a hospitality employment management firm, for alleged labor law violations. The judge reasoned that the unconstitutional protections are severable from the broader operational structure of the NLRB, allowing the agency to continue its work while addressing the constitutional infirmities.
Judicial Precedent and the NLRB’s Constitutional Standing
Judge Mazzant’s landmark decision is deeply rooted in the 5th Circuit’s influential 2025 ruling in SpaceX v. NLRB. In that case, the 5th Circuit expressed significant doubts about the constitutionality of the removal protections granted to ALJs. These judges previously could only be removed "for good cause" as determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) after a formal hearing. The 5th Circuit found these protections to be likely unconstitutional, a finding that ultimately led to the injunction of the NLRB’s administrative processing of unfair labor practice complaints against SpaceX and other employers. Ultimately, the NLRB, acknowledging the judicial headwinds, abandoned its litigation against SpaceX.
Judge Mazzant explicitly stated that his ruling followed directly from the 5th Circuit’s prior determination. He articulated this in his opinion: "This Court takes but a mere step beyond the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in SpaceX to hold that Plaintiff is not only likely to succeed on the merits of its constitutional challenge against the removal protections enjoyed by ALJs and Board Members, but that Plaintiff does succeed on the merits of the same altogether." This indicates a judicial progression, where the 5th Circuit’s "likely" unconstitutionality has been elevated to a definitive finding of unconstitutionality by Judge Mazzant.
The Supreme Court’s Influence and the Doctrine of Severability
Adding further weight to the challenge against the NLRB’s structure is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Slaughter v. Trump. In this pivotal case, the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing precedent dating back to 1935, which had largely shielded the leaders of certain federal agencies from at-will removal by the President. The Slaughter decision, when considered alongside other Supreme Court jurisprudence, has made it increasingly clear that neither the NLRB’s board members nor its ALJs are exempt from the President’s executive authority to remove officials.
Despite these strong constitutional findings, the critical issue for Judge Mazzant was whether the problematic removal protections could be separated from the NLRB’s fundamental authority to operate and enforce labor laws. This concept, known as "severability," has been a central point of contention in similar legal challenges. While other courts have grappled with this question and reached differing conclusions, Judge Mazzant drew upon two key Supreme Court decisions, Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, to guide his analysis. These precedents established that when a provision of a statute is found unconstitutional, courts will consider whether the remainder of the statute can stand independently. In this instance, Judge Mazzant determined that the unconstitutional protections were indeed severable, and that doing so was an appropriate remedy to address the constitutional harms alleged by Aimbridge.
Reforming the NLRB’s Removal Powers: A Path Forward
Judge Mazzant’s ruling specifically addressed the removal powers concerning both NLRB board members and ALJs. He concluded that the President can remove NLRB board members at will. The situation for ALJs, however, presented a more intricate legal puzzle due to the historical involvement of the MSPB in their removal process.
Drawing upon a 2024 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Mazzant determined that NLRB ALJs must now be removable at will by the board’s members, without the necessity of MSPB involvement. He deemed this remedy "most appropriate under the circumstances" and emphasized that it "ensures that the NLRB will be fully responsible" for its ALJs. This effectively grants the NLRB leadership direct control over its administrative judges, aligning with the principle of executive accountability.
Crucially, Judge Mazzant’s decision did not entirely close the door on legislative solutions. He explicitly noted that his ruling "has not foreclosed the opportunity for future congressional legislation" to address the constitutional issues at play. This suggests that Congress could, in the future, enact reforms to the NLRB’s statutory framework to bring it into full compliance with constitutional requirements.
Divergent Judicial Opinions and Employer Wins
This decision by Judge Mazzant represents a significant departure from another recent ruling by a Texas federal judge, Mark Pittman, in the case of Aunt Bertha v. NLRB. In May, Judge Pittman reached an opposite conclusion regarding severability. He held that the NLRB’s unconstitutional removal protections could not be severed from the agency’s authorizing statute. Consequently, Judge Pittman permanently enjoined the NLRB’s administrative proceedings against Aunt Bertha, a social services platform.
The Aunt Bertha decision was viewed as a notable victory for employers, particularly those facing NLRB proceedings within the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit. Mark Eskenazi, counsel at Fox Rothschild, commented on the significance of Pittman’s ruling, noting its potential to bolster employers’ defenses. Furthermore, Judge Pittman’s secondary holding in Aunt Bertha raised another constitutional concern: that the NLRB’s pursuit of damages in an administrative forum may violate an employer’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. This adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal challenges against the NLRB’s administrative processes.
Broader Implications for Labor Law and Executive Power
Judge Mazzant’s ruling, while focused on the specific case of Aimbridge, carries substantial implications for the future of the National Labor Relations Board and the balance of power between executive agencies and the judiciary. By declaring the NLRB’s structure unconstitutional, the decision escalates the ongoing judicial review of federal agency independence and the scope of presidential removal power.
The reliance on Slaughter v. Trump underscores a broader trend of judicial re-examination of historical administrative law doctrines. The Supreme Court’s willingness to reconsider long-standing precedents related to agency independence signals a potential shift towards greater executive control over federal agencies. This could lead to a cascade of similar challenges against other independent agencies with similar structural protections.
The severability aspect of Judge Mazzant’s ruling is particularly important. By allowing the NLRB to continue its operations while excising the unconstitutional provisions, the decision aims to strike a balance between upholding constitutional principles and maintaining the agency’s vital function in enforcing labor laws. However, the differing conclusions on severability among federal judges highlight the legal complexities and potential for inconsistent application of these principles across different jurisdictions.
The NLRB, facing increasing scrutiny from the courts, will likely need to reassess its internal processes and potentially advocate for legislative reform to address the constitutional concerns raised by these rulings. The ongoing legal battles and differing judicial interpretations suggest a period of uncertainty for the agency and for employers and employees alike who interact with the NLRB. The ultimate resolution of these constitutional challenges may well depend on further guidance from the Supreme Court or legislative action by Congress. The long-term impact could reshape the landscape of labor relations in the United States, influencing how federal agencies are structured and how executive authority is exercised over administrative bodies.
About the Author
