A Texas federal district court has split with another Texas district court on a key question: when a court declares the National Labor Relations Board’s removal protections unconstitutional, can it sever the offending provisions and allow an unfair labor practice charge to proceed—or must the proceeding be permanently enjoined?
In Aimbridge Employee Service Corp. v. NLRB, No. 4:25-cv-1014 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2026), Judge Amos Mazzant held that the removal protections are severable—mooting the employer’s request for a permanent injunction and allowing the underlying unfair labor practice charge to proceed.
That result puts Aimbridge squarely at odds with Aunt Bertha v. NLRB, No. 4:24-CV-00798-P (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2026), where Judge Mark Pittman held the protections could not be severed and granted a permanent injunction halting the NLRB unfair labor practice proceedings.
Background: The NLRB and its Statutory Removal Protections
The NLRB is governed by a five-member Board whose members may be removed by the President only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” ALJs, who are appointed by the Board and preside over unfair labor practice hearings, are protected by a separate scheme: the NLRB must petition the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) and establish “good cause” for an ALJ’s removal. Because MSPB members themselves enjoy for-cause protection, ALJs are shielded by two layers of for-cause removal protection.
Aimbridge’s Constitutional Holding
The threshold...
Acting Cebu City Prosecutor Jo-ana Marie Desuyo charged Cebu-based businessman Mark Y. Yu with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code over false statements in an affidavit accusing t...