Top Five Labor Law Developments For November 2025

1. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that Congress may not constitutionally restrict the president's ability to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board without cause. Wilcox v. Trump, et al., No. 25-5057 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 5, 2025). The court reversed district court rulings that had reinstated Board Member Gwynne Wilcox under statutory for-cause removal protections, finding those protections invalid under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Myers and Seila Law, the court concluded the Board wields "substantial executive power" through rulemaking, policymaking adjudications, remedial authority, and litigation, placing it outside the narrow exception recognized in Humphrey's Executor for agencies exercising only quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. The panel emphasized that these powers exceed those of the Federal Trade Commission in 1935 when Humphrey's Executor was decided and, therefore, cannot justify insulation from presidential control. Accordingly, the court ruled that the president's removal of Wilcox was lawful and disregarded the statutory restrictions. The Supreme Court will ultimately need to resolve the issue of the president's removal power.
   
2. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved management attorney Scott Mayer for one of the Board member vacancies and advanced his nomination to the U.S. Senate for a full vote. Mayer's nomination comes almost two months after the HELP Committee advanced James Murphy, a longtime Board official, for a separate open Board seat. The Board currently lacks a quorum, and cannot issue rulings, following the firing of Member Gwynne Wilcox in January 2025 and the departure of former Chairman Marvin Kaplan in August 2025. A U.S. Senate confirmation vote for both Mayer and Murphy would restore a three-member quorum, thus enabling the Board to issue decisions amid a growing case backlog.
   
3. A Washington D.C. federal court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and their affiliated unions, blocking implementation of Section 2 of Executive Order 14343 at the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). AFSME, AFL-CIO et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25:cv-03306 (D. D.C. Nov. 18, 2025). Citing national security concerns, Executive Order 14343 seeks to eliminate collective bargaining rights for federal workers at certain agencies. However, the court found the executive order's elimination of labor protections was unlawful as applied to these unions and their members at USAGM. The judge determined the administration's actions were "clearly retaliatory," violating the First Amendment rights of USAGM employees and their unions. The injunction prevents all defendants, except President Donald Trump, from enforcing the executive order with respect to the bargaining units at USAGM and all its employees represented by the plaintiffs, including from canceling collective bargaining agreements or refusing to recognize the unions as exclusive representatives.
   
4. The HELP Committee, led by Chair Bill Cassidy (R-LA), unveiled a legislative package aimed at modernizing labor laws and strengthening worker rights. The package includes bills such as the Worker RESULTS Act, which ensures fair union elections and timely contracts, and the NLRB Stability Act, which mandates consistent rulings based on federal court precedent. Other measures include limiting frivolous Board claims, protecting worker privacy, and ensuring transparency in union spending. Additional bills address issues such as preventing harassment during picketing and safeguarding American jobs from illegal immigration.
   
5. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied a request for an en banc rehearing from business groups challenging Minnesota's "captive audience" law. Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, et al. v. Ellison, et al., No. 24-3116 (8th Cir. Nov. 3, 2025). The law restricts "employer-sponsored meetings or communication" relating to religious or political matters — including matters relating to labor organizations. The business groups argued the law violated employers' First Amendment rights and was in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act. A three-judge panel previously dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs failed to show an imminent threat of enforcement to defeat sovereign immunity claims. The decision leaves Minnesota's law intact. Similar legislation is in 12 other states, including Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. A California federal judge previously enjoined that state's statute on federal preemption grounds.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.