The U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided to stop defending a law that prevents the president from firing its members without cause. This decision comes as President Donald Trump tries to remove a Democratic member from the board.
Recently, the NLRB informed courts in at least six cases, including one involving SpaceX, that it believes protections against removing board members and judges are unconstitutional. This stance is a change from previous positions, where the board defended these protections as necessary for its independence.
Federal judges have supported these protections in several lawsuits since 2023. Last week, a judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that Trump could not fire Democratic NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, a decision the administration is appealing.
The NLRB is designed to operate independently from the White House, but the Trump administration argues it should be under presidential control. The law states that board members can only be removed for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
Until now, the board defended this law to maintain its independence. However, it recently cited a letter from the acting U.S. Solicitor General stating that these protections are invalid.
Patrick Semmens of the National Right to Work Foundation welcomed the move, saying it could lead to a Supreme Court review. Lauren McFerran, former NLRB chair, warned that invalidating these protections could undermine the board’s neutrality.
Trump fired Wilcox in January, leaving the board unable to operate fully until a judge reinstated her. The SpaceX case also involves questions about these protections, with a Texas judge ruling they are unlawful.
NLRB’s New Stance: The National Labor Relations Board is no longer defending a law that prevents the president from firing its members without cause.
Constitutional Debate: The board now believes these protections violate the U.S. Constitution, a stance supported by some federal judges.
Impact on Independence: Critics argue that removing these protections could compromise the board’s independence and neutrality.
Legal Proceedings: The issue is likely headed for the Supreme Court, which will have the final say.
Read more: