New Process Steel – The Supreme Court Sends The NLRB Back To The Drawing Board
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.17.10
The Supreme Court invalidated today almost 600 decisions issued by the two members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who served for a 27-month period beginning in December, 2007. The Court, in a 5-4 opinion, ruled that the two member panel did not constitute a "quorum" authorized to decide cases under Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 3(b) is the statutory provision that sets forth the familiar three member panel quorum provisions used by the NLRB in deciding cases. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Stevens, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayer, dissented, agreeing with the government's proposed reading of the statutory provision.
The practical effect of New Process Steel will be significant. The NLRB now has four members, as a result of two recess appointments made by President Obama in March of this year. Those appointments, which include Craig Becker, a former lawyer for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, are widely expected to change the ideological make-up of the NLRB. The almost 600 decisions vacated by the Court's decision in New Process Steel are now fair game for reconsideration by the new Democratic-controlled majority of the NLRB.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
