Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Supreme Court Decides Against Reinstating Wilcox to NLRB as They Rule on Her Termination – NLRB Remains Without a Quorum

By Matthew Netti, Keahn Morris, James Hays & John Bolesta on May 23, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Universal Image Supreme Court 3

On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Member Gwynne Wilcox cannot return to work while she challenges President Donald Trump’s decision to terminate her without cause. The latest decision comes in a long line of court decisions since Trump terminated Wilcox in January 2025. The central issue revolves around 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935) limiting the President’s power to fire employees at independent agencies. 

For an in-depth summary of the facts and the constitutional issues at stake, please refer to our initial reports on the district court’s ruling here, the subsequent reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals three-judge panel here, and the decision reached by the full U.S. Court of Appeals here.

The latest Supreme Court order is not a decision on the merits, although it is likely a sign of things to come. The order was split 6-3 along ideological lines, which likely indicates a majority of justices believe Humphrey’s Executor is no longer good law or is distinguishable as it relates to the NLRB. The Supreme Court stated it will hold off on issuing a full decision on the merits until the parties fully brief and argue the central issue. In the meantime, Wilcox remains removed from her position and the NLRB is left without a three-member statutory quorum to hear cases. The Supreme Court stated the stay “reflects our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”

We will continue to monitor future developments as the case is heard on the merits. Employers with questions about how the decision affects them should consult experienced labor counsel.

Photo of Matthew Netti Matthew Netti

Matthew Netti is an associate in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm’s New York office.

Read more about Matthew NettiEmail
Photo of Keahn Morris Keahn Morris

Keahn Morris is a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm’s San Francisco office.

Read more about Keahn MorrisEmail
Photo of James Hays James Hays

James Hays is of counsel in the firm’s New York office and a leader of the Traditional Labor Law Team.

Read more about James HaysEmail
Photo of John Bolesta John Bolesta

John Bolesta is special counsel in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about John BolestaEmail
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory, Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Labor & Employment Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo