Federal Court Finds NLRB Structure Unconstitutional, Splits on Severability of Removal Protections

In Aimbridge Employee Service Corp. v. NLRB, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant ruled in late July 2026 that the for-cause removal protections shielding National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) members and administrative law judges violate Article II of the Constitution. However, rather than halting the agency's operations entirely, the court surgically severed those protections from the broader National Labor Relations Act. This critical remedy allowed the NLRB to continue prosecuting an unfair labor practice case against Aimbridge, a hospitality employment management firm, signaling that constitutional flaws in agency design do not automatically grant corporate defendants immunity from active enforcement.[1][3]

The ruling targets a dual-layered protection scheme that has governed federal labor adjudication for decades and has increasingly come under conservative legal scrutiny. Under the current statutory framework, NLRB administrative law judges can only be removed for 'good cause' as determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Because MSPB members themselves enjoy for-cause removal protections, ALJs are insulated by two distinct layers of tenure security. Corporate challengers argue this structure makes it nearly impossible for the executive branch to hold administrative judges accountable for their decisions.[2][4]

Judge Mazzant, aligning with recent precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court's steady expansion of presidential removal power, found that this structure impermissibly shields inferior officers from executive oversight. The court concluded that the President must retain the authority to remove such officials to ensure democratic accountability within the administrative state. By insulating ALJs behind the MSPB, the court ruled, Congress had unconstitutionally stripped the executive branch of its inherent Article II powers to manage federal agency personnel.[1][2]

For corporate leadership and human resources departments, the severability decision is the critical operational signal emerging from the Texas courtroom. By severing the unconstitutional provisions rather than enjoining the NLRB, the court established that structural constitutional flaws do not automatically terminate ongoing labor prosecutions. The underlying unfair labor practice case against Aimbridge will proceed on its merits, forcing the company to defend its labor practices before the very agency whose structure it successfully challenged in federal court. This outcome fundamentally alters the risk calculus for companies considering structural lawsuits.[3]

The Aimbridge decision creates a direct and immediate split within the federal courts of Texas, complicating the legal landscape for employers nationwide. In May 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruled in Aunt Bertha v. NLRB that the exact same removal protections were unconstitutional, but he reached the opposite conclusion on the appropriate remedy. Judge Pittman determined the provisions could not be severed from the broader statute and permanently enjoined the NLRB from proceeding against that employer, effectively neutralizing the agency's enforcement power in that specific dispute.[1][3]

The stark divergence between the two Texas courts centers on the philosophical limits of judicial remedy and statutory interpretation. In Aunt Bertha, the court reasoned that the constitutional defect stemmed from a 'stacked' structure spanning multiple distinct statutes. The court concluded that any attempt to sever the provisions would require reconstructing the agency from the ground up, an action that amounts to judicial legislation reserved exclusively for Congress. Under that logic, the only valid remedy was to halt the unconstitutional proceedings entirely.[2][3]

Judge Mazzant explicitly rejected that restrictive reasoning in Aimbridge. He cited the Supreme Court's approach in Seila Law and the National Labor Relations Act's explicit severability clause to justify removing the for-cause shields while leaving the agency's core enforcement functions intact. The court noted that before the Administrative Procedure Act was enacted, NLRB hearing examiners operated without removal protections, proving the agency can function perfectly well under a regime where its judges serve at the pleasure of the executive.[2][4]

Both district court rulings operate in the immediate wake of the Fifth Circuit's 2025 decision in SpaceX v. NLRB. In that high-profile case, the appellate court upheld a preliminary injunction against the NLRB based on the strong likelihood that its structure was unconstitutional. However, the Fifth Circuit explicitly deferred the complex question of severability to the final merits phase of the litigation, setting the stage for the current district-level split and leaving lower courts to determine how to handle active NLRB dockets in the interim.[1][5]

The practical effect of the Aimbridge severance is a theoretical, sweeping restructuring of the agency's accountability mechanisms. Under the court's modified framework, ALJs are now removable at will by the NLRB itself, and Board members are removable at will by the President. The court found that this conceptual severance immediately cured the constitutional injury suffered by the employer, rendering Aimbridge's request for a permanent injunction moot and clearing the path for the labor prosecution to resume without further structural delays.[2][4]

The conflicting rulings leave corporate counsel and labor organizers navigating a fractured, highly unpredictable legal landscape. Employers operating within the Fifth Circuit now face a reality where winning a constitutional argument on the merits does not guarantee a pause in their administrative dockets or relief from mounting legal fees. The operational outcome of a constitutional challenge currently depends entirely on which specific district judge is assigned to hear the case, forcing companies to weigh the high costs of federal litigation against the uncertain prospect of actually halting an NLRB prosecution.[3]

The district court split dramatically accelerates the timeline for appellate review. The Fifth Circuit will now be forced to resolve the severability question it deferred in 2025, determining definitively whether the NLRB can continue to function while its structural foundations are dismantled. Given the Supreme Court's recent focus on curbing the administrative state and expanding presidential removal powers, the ultimate resolution of this split will likely reshape federal labor law enforcement and dictate corporate litigation strategies nationwide for years to come.[1][5]