NLRB Seeks to Remove Its Own ‘For-Cause’ Job Protections

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Monday, March 23, asked a Texas federal court to strip its own members and administrative law judges (ALJs) of their “removal-for-cause” job protections. The agency stated eliminating these National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protections would:

• Allow it to comply with recent court rulings; and,
• Increase its effectiveness and fairness.

The move comes after several 2025 court rulings — most notably in the District of Columbia Circuit and the Fifth Circuit — found termination safeguards for NLRB members and ALJs are unconstitutional and invalid.

If the Texas court approves the NLRB request and opts to sever its NLRA protections universally (as opposed to simply the case that initiated the request), the U.S. president could remove its representatives “at will.”

President Donald Trump has sought removal power over all independent federal agencies since starting his second term in early 2025. Longstanding American legal precedent called “Humphrey’s Executor” (from the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States) has made it illegal to fire workers from such agencies without cause. However, in the 2025 case Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for-cause removal protections to be bypassed, treating the 90-year-old precedent as effectively dead, with a final ruling expected this summer.

The NLRB’s stated goals are to:

• Protect private-sector employees’ rights to organize, form unions and engage in “concerted activity” (group action for better pay/conditions) with or without a union; and,
• Investigate unfair labor practices and conduct union representation elections.

The Fox Rothschild law firm provided context on the situation, stating, “The board has effectively asked a federal court to dismantle the structural independence that has defined the agency for nearly a century. Without removal protections, board members and ALJs would serve entirely at the pleasure of the president. Given recent Supreme Court rulings casting doubt on the constitutionality of such removal protections, it is conceivable — if not likely — that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule these job protections unconstitutional. As a practical matter, this means that each new administration could clean house at the NLRB — replacing board members and ALJs with political allies — causing even more dramatic and rapid swings in labor law enforcement and policy than usual.”

In other NLRB news, President Trump on Friday, March 27, named James R. Murphy as the chair of the five-member board.

Trump nominated and swore in Murphy as a member earlier this year, initiating a term that will expire on Dec. 16, 2027. Murphy had previously spent more than four decades with the NLRB, serving in a variety of roles, including chief counsel of Marvin Kaplan, who had two stints leading the board from 2017 to 2025.

Editor’s Note: Additional Content

For more information and resources related to this article, see the pages below, which offer quick access to all WorldatWork content on these topics:

• Employee Benefits
• Employee Compensation
• Total Rewards