Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s application for a stay on a D.C. District Court’s order to reinstate Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). As John reported last month, Wilcox’s reinstatement order was previously stayed by the Supreme Court on April 9 “pending further order . . . of the Court.” Yesterday’s stay was that “further order.”
In a sense, nothing has changed. Wilcox’s reinstatement continues to be stayed, and her case continues to work its way through the D.C. Circuit (as I wrote about on Monday) headed eventually to the Supreme Court for a decision on the merits. What has changed is that the Supreme Court has now given us more clues about how it may rule once Wilcox’s case gets there. The April 9 stay was a bare order. Yesterday’s came with a two-page justification (with an eight-page dissent by the liberal justices).
It should be emphasized that the Court’s reasoning at this stage is provisional, enough to justify a stay but not final disposition of the case. Still, two of the Court’s interim judgments are highly suggestive.
First, the Court “judg[es] that the Government is likely to show that . . . the NLRB . . . exercise[s] considerable executive power,” making its removal protections presumptively unconstitutional. The Court acknowledges that there are “narrow” exceptions to this doctrine (referring to Humphrey’s Executor) but declines to “ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB . . . falls...
Some of the world’s largest food manufacturers, including Nestlé and Unilever, are flooding the market with expensive dietary supplements that promise solutions to stress, obesity, and menopausal ...