Skip to content
Countersuit

SpaceX sues US labor board, claims agency structure is unconstitutional

NLRB sued by SpaceX after accusing the company of illegally firing employees.

Jon Brodkin | 318
Elon Musk on stage at an event, resting his chin on his hand
Elon Musk at an AI event with Britain Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in London on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023. Credit: Getty Images | WPA Pool
Elon Musk at an AI event with Britain Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in London on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023. Credit: Getty Images | WPA Pool

After being charged with illegally firing workers who criticized Elon Musk, SpaceX yesterday sued the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a lawsuit that claims the US labor agency's structure is unconstitutional.

On Wednesday, an NLRB regional director filed a complaint against SpaceX alleging that it illegally fired eight employees who drafted and distributed an open letter about Musk in 2022. If SpaceX doesn't settle the charges, the company is scheduled to face a hearing with an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) starting on March 5.

SpaceX filed its lawsuit against the NLRB in US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, claiming that the NLRB structure violates US law because the administrative law judge cannot be removed by the president of the United States. SpaceX made a virtually identically argument recently when it sued the US attorney general and two other Department of Justice officials in an attempt to stop a separate hiring-discrimination case.

"NLRB ALJs are 'Officers of the United States' under the Constitution's Appointments Clause—not mere employees—because among other things, they hold continuing offices through which they preside over adversarial hearings, receive testimony, shape the administrative record, and prepare proposed findings and opinions," SpaceX argued.

Ars Video

 

SpaceX: “The very definition of tyranny”

The NLRB administrative law judges have "at least two layers of removal protection," which "prevents that exercise of presidential authority and thus violates Article II of the Constitution," SpaceX told the court. "But for these unlawful removal restrictions, either the ALJ assigned to SpaceX's administrative case or the NLRB Members who bear responsibility to supervise and exercise control over the ALJ would face the prospect of removal by the President based on their conduct during the proceedings."

Musk's company asked for a preliminary injunction that would stop the proceeding, saying that "without interim injunctive relief from this Court, SpaceX will be required to undergo an unconstitutional proceeding before an insufficiently accountable agency official."

The NLRB declined to comment today on SpaceX's lawsuit. The NLRB complaint and notice of hearing to SpaceX said that during the scheduled administrative hearing, the company has "the right to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce into the record documents and other evidence."

SpaceX's lawsuit argues that NLRB members act as both prosecutor and judge. Quoting The Federalist No. 47 by James Madison, SpaceX wrote that the "NLRB's current way of functioning is miles away from the traditional understanding of the separation of powers, which views '[t]he accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands' as 'the very definition of tyranny.'"

SpaceX is banking in part on an April 2023 Supreme Court ruling in a case involving the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission. That ruling didn't resolve challenges to the agencies' use of administrative law judges, but found that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits over whether the agency structure is unconstitutional.

SCOTUS weighs similar challenge to SEC

The Supreme Court is currently weighing a challenge to the SEC's use of administrative law judges. The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled against the SEC, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2023.

"Neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has decided whether the NLRB Members' layer of removal protection is unconstitutional," SpaceX's lawsuit said. "But the correct answer, given the relevant Supreme Court precedent and nature of the NLRB Members' functions, is a resounding yes."

SpaceX anticipates that the NLRB will argue its structure is allowable under Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 ruling on FTC authority. SpaceX argues that Humphrey doesn't apply to the NLRB structure.

"Humphrey's Executor applies only to agency officials who do not exercise 'executive power in the constitutional sense,' as the Court concluded about the Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission in 1935," SpaceX wrote. "Whatever might have been true of the FTC's Commissioners in 1935, it is quite clear today that the NLRB's Members exercise substantial executive power under the Constitution. There is no justification for extending Humphrey's Executor to them."

SpaceX pointed to a footnote in a 2020 ruling involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The ruling said that even when the activities of administrative agencies "take 'legislative' and 'judicial' forms," "they are exercises of—indeed, under our constitutional structure they must be exercises of—the 'executive Power.'"

Lawyer: “A typical crazy Elon antic”

Laurie Burgess, an attorney representing the fired SpaceX employees, called SpaceX's lawsuit "a typical crazy Elon antic." The lawsuit is a "classic 'act now and think later' move and in this instance, surely a delay tactic to put off facing the repercussions of his unlawful actions," a Bloomberg article quoted Burgess as saying.

Burgess previously said that "Musk has been thumbing his nose at the law and signaling to management that he, and they, don't need to play by the rules. This creates an intolerable work life in which employees are left without recourse for violations of basic civil right protections."

The NLRB complaint against SpaceX seeks back pay and reinstatement for the employees behind a letter that called on SpaceX to "swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon's personal brand." The letter said that "Elon's behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us."

In addition to firing the employees, a SpaceX vice president "made coercive statements concerning employees' protected concerted activities by disparaging the Open Letter and those employees who had participated in drafting it and by inviting employees to quit if they disagreed with the behavior of Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk," the NLRB complaint said.

Listing image: Getty Images | WPA Pool

Photo of Jon Brodkin
Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter
Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.
318 Comments