Trump vs Biden: Supreme Court Clash Over NLRB Firing – In a stunning action that left legal and labor communities stunned, President Donald Trump unceremoniously terminated National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox on January 27, 2025. Wilcox, who was appointed by then-President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate, had terms of office that extended to August 2028. Her termination has precipitated a major battle among the lawyers about presidential authority and the independence of federal agencies.
Wilcox’s firing is without precedent. Having been the first Black woman member of the NLRB, she was an influential voice on behalf of labor rights. Her firing was not only dubiously legal but rendered the NLRB in non-quorum, effectively grounding the agency. Consequences for labor law are extreme, as it is the NLRB that decides whether disputes between employers and employees are resolved.
Wilcox brought suit in protest of his dismissal, contending that it was contrary to settled Supreme Court precedent. The case would be a presidential power milestone case and would have the potential to change the independence of regulatory agencies.
Legal Implications: A Challenge to Presidential Power
The lawful dispute over Wilcox’s discharge is whether a president can unilaterally terminate an NLRB member. Members of federal independent agencies like the NLRB have, in the past, been shielded from haphazard discharging. Historically, the Supreme Court, in previous cases, has confirmed that presidents cannot unilaterally fire members of independent regulatory boards.
Wilcox’s argument assumes that her dismissal is against Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), in which the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for the president to remove an FTC commissioner without cause.
NLRB Paralysis: Impact on Workers’ Rights
The immediate impact of Wilcox’s firing is the incapacitation of the NLRB. The agency needs at least three members to make decisions, and her termination left it without a member quorum with which to do its business. This has very serious consequences for the enforcement of labor law.
The NLRB is charged with resolving employer-employee disputes, monitoring union elections, and enforcing fair labor practices. Since the agency itself has effectively been put on hold, pending cases do not move forward, and employees who count on the board for protection are left in a state of legal limbo.
Worker activists and unionists contend this action is a setback for workers’ rights. By precluding the NLRB from acting, they contend, the Trump administration is diminishing the potential of workers to have employees compel labor law against employers who are engaging in unfair labor practices. Business interests, on the other hand, have welcomed the move as an opportunity to look for a more pro-business NLRB that could reverse what it terms overregulation.
Brodier Pattern: Reframing Independent Agencies
The dismissal of Wilcox is not an isolated action. The Trump administration has made similar actions with other independent regulatory commissions, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The action is a nod to exerting greater presidential control over traditionally independent agencies.
It is argued by critics that this practice works against the very purpose of these agencies. Independent regulatory commissions were established as independent bodies so that they may be shielded from direct political pressures so they can make unprejudiced, fact-driven decisions. If presidents can fire members at whim, then these agencies are subject to becoming tools of the executive branch rather than impartial enforcers of the law.
Conclusion
Wilcox’s removal has spawned a court fight that potentially can redefine how independent federal agencies are run. Overhanging the fight is a simple question: Are presidents free to dismiss members of independent agencies, or should independent agencies be shielded from politics?
The ruling here has significant implications for labor rights, the regulation of business, and the functioning of the U.S. government as well. The ability of independent agencies to apply the law equally and justly would be compromised if they were not provided with autonomy.
As the case makes its way through the courts, labor activists, business leaders, and law scholars are watching closely. The decision has the potential to establish a precedent that affects not just the NLRB but all independent agencies, deciding the balance of power in government for decades to come.
