A series of recent rulings from Trump-appointed judges is undermining the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and threatening protections for millions of American workers. In a move that could reshape labor rights across the country, these judges are granting preliminary injunctions to companies that argue the NLRB’s structure violates the U.S. Constitution. The result? A slow, but deliberate dismantling of the federal agency tasked with protecting workers from unfair labor practices.
One of the most notable cases involves the Texas-based tech company Findhelp, which successfully halted an NLRB investigation into its alleged union-busting activities. The NLRB had accused the company of illegally firing and intimidating workers involved in an organizing campaign. However, a Trump-appointed judge, Mark Pittman, sided with Findhelp, granting the company’s request for a temporary injunction and stalling the NLRB’s proceedings.
Pittman ruled that Findhelp was likely to prevail in its argument that the NLRB’s administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutionally protected from removal by the president. This argument challenges the very foundation of the NLRB, a nearly century-old agency created by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal to safeguard workers’ rights to unionize and collectively bargain.
The NLRB plays a crucial role in enforcing labor rights, particularly in the private sector, where workers are most vulnerable to corporate abuse. It oversees cases of unfair labor practices, ensuring that employers and unions adhere to federal labor laws. At the heart of its structure are administrative law judges who preside over disputes and issue rulings that can be appealed to a five-member board in Washington, D.C.
However, companies like Findhelp have begun to challenge this structure, claiming it violates the president’s removal powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, they argue that the NLRB’s administrative law judges have too much protection from being dismissed by the White House, making the entire agency unconstitutional.
This line of reasoning has gained traction among conservative judges, many of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump. Pittman’s ruling in the Findhelp case is the latest in a series of decisions that have emboldened corporations to challenge the NLRB’s authority.
In 2022, workers at Findhelp voted 95-52 to join the Office and Professional Employees International Union. Following the vote, the company allegedly retaliated by firing and coercing employees involved in the organizing effort, prompting the NLRB to take action.
The NLRB filed a complaint against Findhelp, but with Pittman’s recent ruling, the agency’s investigation has been halted. This means that any administrative hearing to determine whether the company unlawfully fired and surveilled workers will not move forward for the time being.
Pittman’s decision was heavily influenced by a 2022 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found that removal protections for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) administrative law judges were unconstitutional. Using this precedent, Pittman concluded that Findhelp’s case against the NLRB had merit, warranting the temporary injunction.
“The Court [is] unpersuaded by the NLRB’s arguments,” Pittman wrote, dismissing the agency’s claim that Findhelp should not be entitled to relief until the president attempts to remove an administrative law judge. This ruling leaves the NLRB powerless to hold Findhelp accountable for its alleged labor violations.
Findhelp is not the only company benefiting from these rulings. Elon Musk’s SpaceX and a subsidiary of the fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer have also obtained injunctions from Trump-appointed judges, blocking NLRB investigations into their labor practices. Like Findhelp, these companies claim that the NLRB’s structure violates constitutional principles, specifically the president’s removal powers and the separation of powers doctrine.
These legal challenges are part of a broader corporate effort to weaken labor protections. Major corporations like Starbucks, Amazon, and Trader Joe’s have all joined the fray, hoping to strip the NLRB of its ability to protect workers from unfair labor practices. By attacking the NLRB’s structure, these companies are attempting to eliminate a federal agency that has long been a thorn in their side.
Without the NLRB, workers would lose one of the few avenues they have to challenge unjust firings, fight for better wages, and hold employers accountable for violating labor laws. Labor unions and workers’ rights advocates have described these legal maneuvers as dangerous and extreme.
“Prior to the New Deal, judges claimed things like overtime and child labor rules were unconstitutional,” said journalist Ryan Grim, pointing to the historical significance of these rulings.
The consequences of these rulings are potentially far-reaching. If companies succeed in dismantling the NLRB, millions of workers could be left vulnerable to exploitation. Employers would be free to fire employees who attempt to unionize, and the protections that have been in place for nearly a century would be erased.
The NLRB has warned that granting injunctions like the one in the Findhelp case sets a dangerous precedent. “Granting an injunction would encourage any employer or labor union unhappy with scrutiny of their labor practices to seek preliminary injunctions against NLRB proceedings,” the agency argued in the SpaceX case.
As these cases inch closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, the future of labor protections in America hangs in the balance. If the Supreme Court sides with corporations, the NLRB could be rendered powerless, leaving workers with no federal agency to turn to when their rights are violated.
The attack on the NLRB by Trump-appointed judges and wealthy corporations is a direct assault on the rights of American workers. While corporations like Findhelp, SpaceX, and others fight to erode labor protections, millions of workers are left wondering what the future holds for their ability to organize and defend their rights in the workplace.
As the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus succinctly put it, “The NLRB protects Americans’ right to unionize, fight unjust firings, and collectively bargain for higher wages. Without it, employers can ignore labor laws and deprive workers of their rights.”
COMMENTS