A Texas federal judge ruled last week that the National Labor Relations Board’s structure is unconstitutional, though the agency can continue its operations. Judge Amos Mazzant determined that the removal protections for the board’s administrative law judges and its five-member panel violate the U.S. Constitution. These protections, which shield officials from at-will dismissal by the president, conflict with recent rulings from the Supreme Court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mazzant refused to halt the NLRB’s prosecution of Aimbridge Employee Service Corp., a hospitality management company, for alleged labor violations. He found that the board’s unconstitutional protections are severable from its broader structure, allowing the agency to function despite the defect. The judge cited the 5th Circuit’s 2025 ruling in SpaceX v. NLRB as the foundation for his decision. That case found that the removal protections for administrative law judges were likely unconstitutional.
Mazzant wrote that the court “takes but a mere step beyond the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in SpaceX.” He noted that the decision is bolstered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Slaughter v. Trump. In that case, the high court struck down precedent dating back to 1935 that insulated federal agency leaders from at-will removal by the president. Mazzant concluded that both the NLRB board members and its ALJs are not exempt from the president’s removal power.
Several other courts have been asked to weigh in on whether NLRB’s removal protections are severable from its statute. Those courts reached varying conclusions. Mazzant looked to prior Supreme Court decisions in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB to determine that the protections were severable. He wrote that this remedy “ensures that the NLRB will be fully responsible” for its administrative law judges.
The decision contrasts sharply with a May opinion issued by a separate Texas federal judge, Mark Pittman. Pittman held in Aunt Bertha v. NLRB that the unconstitutional protections could not be severed from the agency’s statute. He permanently enjoined the NLRB’s administrative proceedings against Aunt Bertha, a social services platform. Counsel Mark Eskenazi noted this as a win for employers facing proceedings in the 5th Circuit.
For companies operating in the hospitality and service sectors, this legal setting creates significant uncertainty. The NLRB remains active in enforcing labor laws, but the constitutionality of its internal governance is in question. This creates a complex environment where employers must handle active investigations while questioning the legal foundation of the agency enforcing them. The differing rulings from Texas judges highlight the deep division over how to resolve the agency’s structural issues.
Employers face a difficult situation. The legal path forward is unclear. Small businesses thrive with smart leadership moves that account for these shifting rules. Aimbridge Employee Service Corp. now faces a lawsuit in federal court, but the status of other cases remains undecided. The agency’s ability to enforce labor standards may depend on future appeals to higher courts.
Leave a Reply