For too long, working people have watched their rights swing back and forth depending on who occupies the White House.
One administration strengthens workers’ ability to organize and bargain collectively. The next rolls those protections back. A new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturns decisions made by the previous Board. Federal courts reinterpret longstanding precedent. Then the cycle begins again.
The result is a labor law system that has become increasingly unstable.
That instability has real consequences. Workers trying to organize a union face changing election procedures and legal standards. Employers must adapt to shifting rules governing bargaining obligations and workplace policies. Unions spend years securing protections that can be narrowed—or erased—after the next election.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter has brought that reality into even sharper focus. Although the case centered on presidential authority to remove leaders of independent federal agencies, its implications reach well beyond the agency involved in the dispute. For the labor movement, it raises an important question: How long can workers’ rights depend on changing administrations and shifting judicial interpretations rather than stable laws enacted by Congress?
The Pendulum Keeps Swinging
When Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, it sought to establish a lasting framework for labor relations. The law created the NLRB to protect workers’ right to organize, bargain collectively, and engage in concerted activity. Congress gave Board members staggered terms and protections against arbitrary removal to promote continuity and independence in enforcing federal labor law.
That system was never entirely insulated from politics. Presidents appointed Board members with different legal philosophies, and courts continued to interpret the law. But over time, Congress largely stopped updating the National Labor Relations Act. As labor law reform stalled, more policy decisions were left to the NLRB, executive agencies, and the federal courts.
Issues ranging from union election procedures and captive-audience meetings to joint-employer standards, bargaining obligations, and remedies for unfair labor practices increasingly became matters of administrative interpretation rather than legislative action. Labor law began changing not because Congress amended the statute, but because administrations changed.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter threatens to accelerate that pattern.
By overturning the 1935 precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Court concluded that Congress generally cannot prevent a President from removing the leaders of independent executive agencies. Although Slaughter involved the Federal Trade Commission, many legal observers expect its reasoning to affect agencies such as the NLRB that have historically operated with a degree of independence.
If that happens, changes in presidential administrations could bring even greater changes to the composition of the Board—and, with it, the interpretation and enforcement of federal labor law.
Workers deserve to know that the rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act will not change every few years. Employers also benefit from stable, predictable rules that allow them to comply with the law and bargain in good faith. Constantly shifting standards undermine confidence in the law itself.
The impact of judicial decisions extends beyond the National Labor Relations Board and reaches the broader labor movement as well. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME held that public-sector employees cannot be required to pay fair-share fees to the unions that represent them in collective bargaining. The ruling fundamentally changed the financial and organizing landscape for public-sector unions, placing greater emphasis on voluntary membership and member engagement. Like many landmark labor decisions, Janus demonstrates how a single Supreme Court ruling can reshape the labor movement for decades.
The Need for Lasting Reform
The debate surrounding Slaughter is about more than one Supreme Court decision. It highlights a labor law system that has become increasingly dependent on executive appointments and judicial interpretation because Congress has failed to comprehensively modernize the National Labor Relations Act.
Congress cannot simply overturn a constitutional ruling through legislation. It can, however, strengthen and modernize federal labor law by establishing clearer statutory protections, improving remedies for violations, and reducing the extent to which workers’ rights depend on changing administrative interpretations.
The labor movement has long argued that the National Labor Relations Act no longer provides workers with the timely and effective protections Congress envisioned in 1935. Organizing campaigns can drag on for months or years. Employers who violate the law often face minimal consequences. Workers who are illegally fired for union activity may wait years for relief while organizing efforts collapse.
Those are problems that no NLRB—regardless of who appoints its members—can solve alone.
Ultimately, Slaughter serves as a reminder that lasting change will not come solely from the courts or the next Board majority. Durable protections for working people require durable laws. That responsibility rests with Congress and with the elected officials who write, amend, and defend the nation’s labor laws.
As Americans prepare to vote this November, it is worth remembering that every election helps shape the future of workers’ rights. The officials elected to Congress, state legislatures, governors’ offices, and ultimately the White House will decide not only who enforces labor law, but whether it is strengthened, modernized, or allowed to continue swinging with the political pendulum.
