Key Points

• NLRB enforcement blocked: A federal court in Texas permanently enjoined the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from continuing its unfair labor practice case against employer Findhelp and declared the agency’s removal protections for both Board members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) unconstitutional.
• No quick fix: The court declined to sever the unconstitutional removal provisions from the statute, holding that no single provision of the NLRA could be excised without forcing the court to reconstruct the statutory scheme.
• Seventh Amendment ruling: The court held that the NLRB cannot adjudicate claims for compensatory or consequential damages in an administrative proceeding that provides no jury trial — a holding with potentially sweeping implications for NLRB remedial authority.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently granted summary judgment to Aunt Bertha d/b/a Findhelp (Findhelp), permanently enjoining the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from prosecuting its unfair labor practice case against the company. The decision, issued on May 15, 2026, follows an earlier Fifth Circuit ruling that affirmed a preliminary injunction and held that the NLRB’s dual layers of for-cause removal protection for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional.

The court’s opinion addressed three issues, each resolved against the NLRB.

First, the court held that the removal protections for both NLRB members and ALJs violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The court found that the NLRB exercises significant executive authority through its combined investigatory, prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions, placing it outside the narrow exception that insulates officials from removal through termination by the President.

Second, the court refused to sever the offending removal provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and allow the NLRB’s proceedings to continue against Findhelp. The NLRB had asked the court to simply strike the removal protections and let the case go forward — the agency’s strategy to salvage its enforcement authority. The court rejected that approach, finding that the constitutional defect stems from a group of “stacked” or “layered” removal protections encompassing multiple statutes and institutions, and that there is no single provision the court could erase to cure it. The court found that any repair would require the court to choose among “competing institutional designs” — for example, excising Board or ALJ removal protection, or both — each producing a “materially different regime” and amounting to judicial legislation. The court emphasized that, in any event, severance would not resolve Findhelp’s constitutional injury, because a “proceeding that has already happened cannot be undone.” The court ruled allowing a case to proceed under a judicially modified framework would perpetuate that injury.

Third, the court held that the NLRB's pursuit of compensatory and consequential damages in an administrative forum violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The court explained that because the NLRB’s complaint sought retrospective, compensatory and monetary relief resembling a traditional common law suit, the Constitution requires that adjudication occur before an Article III court with a civil jury.

Implications for Employers

This decision strengthens the hand of any employer currently facing or anticipating NLRB proceedings, particularly in the Fifth Circuit. The court’s refusal to sever removal protections means that employers challenging the NLRB’s structure are not merely contesting a procedural technicality that the NLRB can fix on the fly; they are raising a structural defect that, if found, halts the proceeding entirely. Coupled with the Seventh Amendment holding, the decision undermines the NLRB’s ability to pursue monetary damages through its administrative tribunals.

Employers navigating this landscape should consult experienced counsel to evaluate whether pending or anticipated NLRB matters may be subject to similar constitutional challenges.

For more information, please contact Mark Eskenazi at 202.461.3109 or meskenazi@foxrothschild.com, or another member of Fox Rothschild’s Labor & Employment Department. Listen to Mark’s podcast, “Labor Law Lineup”, on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily this law firm or its clients.