The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Oct. 19 to review former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox’s challenge to her firing by President Donald Trump, leaving intact a lower court ruling that significantly expands presidential authority over the independent federal labor agency.
The justices’ refusal to hear the case effectively ends Wilcox’s legal battle to regain her position and reinforces a broader shift in the balance of power between the White House and independent regulatory agencies. The decision also raises important questions about the NLRB’s independence and the future direction of federal labor policy.
Background: A Controversial Removal
Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the NLRB, was appointed to a second five-year term by former President Joe Biden in 2023. Trump fired her in January 2025, shortly after returning to the White House, despite federal law permitting the removal of NLRB members only for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
Wilcox challenged her dismissal, arguing that Trump violated the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) statutory protections against removal without cause.
In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell sided with Wilcox, finding that the law's removal protections were constitutional. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed that decision in December 2025, ruling 2-1 that the president could remove NLRB members notwithstanding those protections.
This Supreme Court decision leaves that appellate ruling undisturbed.
Part of a Broader Shift in Presidential Power
The decision follows the Supreme Court’s June 2026 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which upheld Trump’s removal of Democratic Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter.
That ruling overturned the court’s landmark 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had long supported Congress’s authority to shield certain independent agency officials from dismissal at the president’s discretion.
Together, the decisions substantially weaken statutory protections designed to insulate federal regulatory agencies from political interference.
What This Means for Employers
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene has significant implications for employers, unions, and workers navigating federal labor law.
The NLRB oversees union elections, investigates unfair labor practices, and adjudicates disputes under the NLRA. Its decisions can shape employer obligations involving union organizing, workplace policies, collective bargaining, and employee rights.
Greater presidential control over the board could make federal labor policy more responsive to changes in administration, potentially producing sharper shifts in enforcement priorities and legal interpretations.
For employers, the development underscores the importance of monitoring NLRB appointments, decisions, and enforcement activity. Although the court’s action does not itself change employers’ obligations under federal labor law, it strengthens the president’s ability to influence the agency responsible for interpreting and enforcing those obligations.
The broader takeaway is that the NLRB’s traditional independence from the White House has been significantly diminished, with potentially lasting consequences for federal labor relations.
Was this resource helpful?
Validate your HR expertise
Earning your SHRM-CP credential makes you a recognized expert and leader in the HR field.
Related Content
Transform HR with mobile technology to streamline workflows, enhance communication, and boost employee engagement across distributed teams.
A new study found that talent development practitioners believe performance-based assessments are more effective at measuring employee learning outcomes than knowledge tests.
As AI makes deeper inroads into organizations, employee concerns about the technology continue to grow. Here's how HR leaders can address the fear of AI among their own staff, as well as in the wider organization.