Update: The NLRB Has Lost Its Quorum – DC Circuit Stays District Court’s Reinstatement of Board Member Gwynne Wilcox – and a New General Counsel Has Been Nominated
On March 28, 2025, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump likely has the authority to remove National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox, as well as Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, without cause.
In granting the Government’s motion for an emergency stay of the reinstatement orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the appeals court has once again left the NLRB without a quorum.
The Future of Humphrey’s Executor Remains Unresolved
In a two-to-one decision, the panel held that the President likely had the legal authority to remove Wilcox and Harris from their positions, notwithstanding that the Executive did not show that the removals were for cause, as required under the statutes that created the agencies. In so ruling, the Court has added to the list of cases that appear to further narrow the application of the Supreme Court’s holding in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). There, the Court unanimously held that the President lacked the power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress.
In the instant case, the Trump administration argued that Humphrey’s Executor was not good law and should no longer be followed. However, the D.C. Circuit did not go so far, but rather concluded that Humphrey’s Executor did not apply because of the differences between the NLRB and the MSPB on the one hand, and the Federal Trade Commission, the agency at issue in Humphrey’s Executor, on the other.
In her dissent, Judge Patricia Millett disagreed with the majority about the applicability of Humphrey’s Executor to the NLRB and the MSPB, noting that the decision “marks the first time in history that a court of appeals, or the Supreme Court, has licensed the termination of members of multimember adjudicatory boards statutorily protected by the very type of removal restriction the Supreme Court has twice unanimously upheld.” She called the majority’s decision “a hurried and preliminary first-look ruling by this court to announce a revolution in the law that the Supreme Court has expressly avoided,” and one which would “trap in legal limbo millions of employees and employers whom the law says must go to these boards for the resolution of their employment disputes.”
What Happens Now While the NLRB Again Lacks a Quorum?
As we previously reported, while without a quorum, i.e., at least three Board members, the NLRB is not able to issue decisions or engage in rulemaking. Nevertheless, the Board has indicated it will continue to perform other functions, citing the NLRB’s 2011 “Order Contingently Delegating Authority to the General Counsel” contained at 76 FR 69768, which includes the ability to initiate and prosecute proceedings under Section 10(j) or Section 10(e) or (f), and contempt proceedings pertaining to the enforcement of or compliance with any order of the Board, even though this delegation has been challenged in the past.
Of course, the President retains the ability to submit nominations for the other two vacant seats on the five-member NLRB to the Senate. Confirmation of one new member would reestablish a quorum. When and whether that will happen remains to be seen. And, as to the question of the continued viability of Humphrey’s Executor, it is virtually certain that the Supreme Court will opine during its current term, either with regard to Ms. Wilcox or in other pending cases that raise the issue.
The President Has Nominated a New General Counsel for the NLRB
On March 25th, the White House announced the nomination of Crystal Carey, a management side labor lawyer, for the role of NLRB General Counsel (GC). The nomination is subject to confirmation by the Senate and it is not known when the nomination will be considered and acted upon. In the meantime, the role of the GC remains covered by William Cowen, who was named Acting General Counsel on March 3rd, following the President’s termination of Jennifer Abruzzo, a longtime NLRB attorney who served as GC under President Biden.
Epstein Becker Green Staff Attorney Elizabeth A. Ledkovsky assisted with this publication.
Can Common Interest Communities Ban Religious Displays On Doors And Doorframes?
The Nevada legislature is currently considering a bill, SB 201, that would restrict, with certain exceptions, an association or unit’s owner who rents or leases his or her unit from prohibiting a unit’s owner or occupant of a unit from engaging in the “display of religious items”. The bill defines “display of religious items” as “an item or combination of items: (1) Made of wood, metal, glass, plastic, cloth, fabric or paper; and (2) Displayed or affixed on any entry door or doorframe of a unit because of sincerely held religious beliefs”. At the Senate Committee on Judiciary the bill was amended to, among other things, expand its application to include apartments.
The reference to doorframes caused me to think of mezuzot. A mezuzah consists of a case containing a small piece of parchment inscribed by hand with the first two sections of the Shema. The fixing of mezuzah to a doorframe is governed by a number of specific rules, including a requirement that it be visible (or there be a symbol indicating the presence of the mezuzah).
As noted, an item must be displayed “because of sincerely held religious beliefs”. Mezuzot and doorposts should meet this requirement because are specifically mentioned in Deuteronomy 6:9 (“וּכְתַבְתָּ֛ם עַל־מְזֻז֥וֹת בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ׃ {ס} inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates”). In obedience of this divine command, Jews affix mezuzot to every doorway in their homes (other than bathrooms and small closets).
What about religious symbols of other faiths? The bill does not specifically refer to any particular faith or symbols (including a mezuzah). Crosses or crucifixes are generally recognized as Christian symbols and nothing in the bill excludes either. However, they do raise a question of what is meant by “sincerely held religious beliefs”. Does this simply require that the owner or occupant sincerely hold a belief in Christianity or does it require that the owner or occupant specifically believe that the display is religiously mandated? If the latter requirement is imposed, then it may be difficult for an owner or occupant to meet it, for I know of no Christian canon similar to Deuteronomy 6:9 that mandates a display of a cross or crucifix on a door or doorframe (if any reader is aware of such a requirement, please let me know). Thus, a Christian may choose to affix a cross to his or her doorway because they are a sincere believer, but they may not believe that they are required by their religion to do so.
I therefore find the requirement of a “sincerely held religious belief” to be problematical because it invites owners associations, landlords, and ultimately the courts to delve into religious law and belief. In addition, the requirement could invite challenges to the sincerity of an owner’s belief.
The bill also excludes, among other things, a display that “promotes discrimination or discriminatory belief”. As a content-based restriction on speech, this exclusion is highly problematical from a First Amendment perspective.
While SB 201 is well-intentioned, it does serve to illustrate how difficult it is to draft legislation that affects religious practices without entangling the government in questions of religious belief.
UK Business Immigration – New Law on Right to Work Checks for Workers: Makes Sense in Principle but Tricky in Practice
The government has announced the latest instalment in its ‘crackdown’ on illegal working by extending right to work checks to businesses hiring gig economy and zero-hours workers. In principle, this is logical and reasonable – prevention of illegal working should rightly apply to anyone working in the UK regardless of their worker status label. However, any change in the law must be supported by carefully-drafted guidance (which hasn’t always been the case in this area). Many businesses who fall foul of the UK’s complex right to work rules are certainly not ‘rogue’ employers, but just in dire need of clear guidelines on what they need to do.
Under s.15 and s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, employment of an adult subject to immigration control who does not have permission to work or is working in breach of their visa conditions exposes the employer to a civil penalty (currently set at a maximum of £60,000 per person) and/or a range of other sanctions including an unlimited fine, business closure, director disqualification and potential prison sentence of up to 5 years. S.25(b) IANA specifies that employment for these purposes is “employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied and whether oral or written”. UK businesses are therefore currently only at risk of sanctions in relation to employees working illegally but the Home Office has been trying to close this loophole for some time.
In September 2024, the Home Office updated its Right to work checks: an employer’s guide to state: “Where the worker is not your direct employee (for example, if they’re self-employed), you are not required to establish a statutory excuse, but you must still carry out these checks (and retain evidence you have done so) to comply with your sponsor duties.”
As this appeared to conflict with the provisions of IANA, we contacted the Home Office to clarify what this wording meant for organisations who do not hold a sponsor licence. Wording later on in the same guidance states that employers are strongly encouraged to carry out checks even on those workers who are not employees and on contractors and labour providers but stops short of imposing any obligations.
In February just gone, the same part of the employer’s guide was amended to read: “Where the worker is not your direct employee (for example, if they’re self-employed), you are not required to establish a statutory excuse. However, you must still carry out these checks (and retain evidence you have done so) if you are a sponsor licence holder and are sponsoring the worker to ensure compliance with your sponsor duties.” In other words, no checks are required on workers, other than in circumstances where they are sponsored.
The government’s latest announcement will require it to change IANA and given the specific reference to gig economy and zero hours workers in the announcement, it will also need to give some careful thought to the following:
Will the changes only apply to gig economy and zero hours workers or to all other workers including agency workers and freelancers in any type of business? How do you define a ‘gig economy worker’?
Will employers be required to carry out checks on existing workers or just those hired on or after the date of implementation?
Will right to work checks apply to the genuinely self-employed and if not, how will employers, let alone the Home Office, differentiate them from workers? Dozens of decided cases around the gig economy, including at the highest levels within the UK legal system, have failed to come up with a definitive test for what separates a worker from the genuinely self-employed. There is also no definition at law of “gig economy”. So a business which uses outsourced labour faces a nearly impossible choice (maybe that’s the point — it’s hard to tell). It has to decide between (i) maintaining the line that its associates are fully self-employed and so their right to work compliance is not its responsibility on the one hand or (ii) doing the checks to avoid time at HM’s pleasure, so tacitly accepting that they are workers, which then pulls down upon itself all sorts of liabilities in relation to holiday pay, auto-enrolment contributions, minimum wage, etc., that it could perhaps otherwise have avoided. Damned either way, it seems.
Could we end up with a requirement to carry out checks on anyone who provides any sort of service for payment regardless of status – your plumber, builder, taxi driver etc? No doubt the Home Office would laugh at the idea as patently silly, as indeed it is, but that is the logical extension of these new requirements unless and until there is the clearest line drawn in law between who is covered and who is not – just saying “workers and gig economy people” won’t cut it for that purpose as what is covered by one is still being litigated and the other has no definition at all. It is also unclear whether there will be any overlap in law or principle with the tax position – for example, if the supply to you of a particular contractor is caught by IR35 (in other words, he is deemed to be doing work akin to that of an employee), would that mean that these new duties apply? Or if he is a sole trader working in his own name, do these new obligations depend on whether he can show that you are just one of a number of customers for his trade or profession or on how much work he does for you in a week, a month or a year? Will we see a resurgence of the issue of economic dependency? This all sounds a bit shrill, but unless there is proper clarity attached to these extended obligations, operating them will be a nightmare for employers. The line between worker and fully self-employed is extremely thin and can depend on relatively minute facts, the relevance of which could easily escape the average employer. The only completely safe course will be to make as many of those workers into Schedule E employees as possible, so putting the obligation to do the checks beyond argument but at the same time imposing significant costs and loss of flexibility on businesses. It is of course government policy to push as many people as it can into tax-paying employment (hence the proposal to drop worker status altogether in due course) so this may be seen as consistent with that direction of travel. The issue will be how much of a mess is created for employers in the meantime, and in the absence of that very clear guidance, the answer to that seems likely to be “far more than could ever have been thought necessary”.
Will the obligation still sit with labour providers to carry out checks on the employees it provides to its clients or will both parties need to carry out their own checks? If the latter, will both parties be liable for a civil penalty in the event of illegal working? We foresee some interesting contractual tussles over where that liability may fall as between the parties.
What action should employers take?
Although the planned changes appear to be aimed at employers which intentionally breach their immigration duties, all organisations with overseas workers are likely to be affected, since the Home Office has shown limited ability to distinguish effectively between the politically-essential “rogue employers” and those doing their best in a bewildering blizzard of law and guidance — compliance action and fines are often issued to well-intentioned and generally diligent sponsors which have unwittingly fallen foul of their increasingly byzantine immigration obligations. Of the hundreds of cases we have advised on (many of them for large, professional organisations), almost all arise out of a genuine oversight on the part of the employer, combined with an often understandable lack of awareness of the prevention of illegal working rules. Whilst ignorance is rightly not a valid defence to compliance, the UK immigration system remains complex and constantly changing. Employers should not assume for a moment that the stated focus on intentional breach will avail them in any way.
It’s not clear when the changes will be implemented but UK businesses which hire anyone who is not an employee should:
Consider the extent of their non-employed work force and the checks that are currently done on them
Review relevant right to work procedures and the resources needed to extend them to workers (and, potentially, the self-employed)
Given the Home Office’s ongoing ‘crackdown’, ensure that their right to work procedures (for the entire workforce, including employees) are clear, robust and effective
The UK’s right to work rules are not straightforward, nor the penalties for tripping over them trivial – training and legal support is a worthwhile investment.
Second Circuit Clarifies ADA Standard on Reasonable Accommodations
Employers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont should take note of a recent Second Circuit decision holding that an employee may still be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without accommodation.
In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, (2d Cir. Mar 25, 2025), a circuit court panel vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Whitehall Central School District (“Whitehall”) on a failure-to-accommodate claim. The employee, a teacher with a longstanding history of PTSD, had been granted an accommodation in 2008 allowing her to leave campus for short breaks during morning and afternoon “prep periods”—times when she otherwise would not have been responsible for overseeing students. In 2016, a policy change prohibited teachers from leaving campus during these periods. Whitehall later permitted a morning break and, at times, an afternoon break when coverage was available.
The case focused on the 2019–20 school year, when the employee was assigned to supervise students during the time she would ordinarily take her afternoon break. She continued to take the breaks without formal approval, which she testified heightened her anxiety due to concerns about violating school policy. She later filed suit, alleging that Whitehall failed to reasonably accommodate her disability in violation of the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to Whitehall, reasoning that because the employee admitted during the proceedings that she could perform her job without the requested accommodation, she could not establish a required element of her claim.
The Second Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that the ADA does not require an employee to show that an accommodation is necessary—only that it is reasonable. To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, an employee must show that: (1) their employer is subject to the ADA; (2) they were disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) they were otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of their job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) their employer refused to make a reasonable accommodation (emphasis added). The Second Circuit held that the ability to perform the essential functions of the job without an accommodation does not foreclose an employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim. The statutory language protects employees who can perform their jobs “with or without” accommodation and obligates employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the ADA’s plain text and aligned itself with the majority of other circuits in rejecting the idea that an employee must show an accommodation is necessary to perform the essential functions of their job in order to be entitled to one. It reiterated that the ADA is a remedial statute that must be construed broadly to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and to say that an accommodation must be necessary in order to be reasonable would run counter to this purpose. The Second Circuit did note, however, that Whitehall may still raise other defenses on remand, including whether the employee had a qualifying disability or whether the requested accommodation would have posed an undue hardship.
A key takeaway for Second Circuit employers is that the ADA requires them to consider and, where appropriate, provide reasonable accommodations—even when an employee can perform essential job functions without one.
D.C. Circuit Rules Trump Can Remove Independent Agency Members Without Cause
On March 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump likely has the authority to remove National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris without cause.
Quick Hits
The D.C. Circuit Court ruled that President Trump likely has the authority to remove NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris without cause, staying previous reinstatement orders from lower courts.
The ruling leaves the NLRB and MSPB without enough members to hear cases.
The decision addresses significant constitutional questions regarding the president’s power to remove members of independent agencies, boards, and commissions and Congress’s authority to restrict removal.
In a split decision, the D.C. Circuit stayed two rulings by federal district courts in Washington, D.C., that had reinstated NLRB member Wilcox and MSPB member Harris to their respective independent agencies. President Trump had removed Wilcox and Harris, both democratic appointees, earlier this year, leading them to file legal challenges.
Writing separate concurring opinions, Circuit Judges Justin R. Walker and Karen LeCraft Henderson found that the government was likely to succeed on the merits that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to remove members of both the NLRB and MSPB because the agencies wield “substantial executive power.”
“The forcible reinstatement of a presidentially removed principal officer disenfranchises voters by hampering the President’s ability to govern during the four short years the people have assigned him the solemn duty of leading the executive branch,” Judge Walker wrote in his concurring opinion.
While Judge Henderson agreed “with many of the general principles in Judge Walker’s opinion about the contours of presidential power under Article II of the Constitution,” she concluded “the government’s likelihood of success on the merits [was] a slightly closer call.” Additionally, she emphasized that the government had clearly shown that it would face irreparable harm if the stays were not issued.
The stays prevent Wilcox and Harris from serving as members of the NLRB and MSPB, leaving each of their agencies without a quorum to hear cases. The NLRB is a five-member board created by the National Labor Relations Act that enforces labor law through representation and unfair labor practice cases. The MSPB is a three-member bipartisan board adjudicating personnel and merit systems issues involving federal employees.
Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, issued a separate dissenting opinion sharply criticizing the appeals court for granting the stays and stripping the agencies of their quora that the district court orders had maintained, “leav[ing] languishing hundreds of unresolved legal claims.”
The Wilcox and Harris cases have raised fundamental constitutional and separation of powers questions over the president’s authority to remove members of independent agencies, boards, and commissions and Congress’s authority to restrict removal. The Trump administration has argued that provisions limiting the president’s removal power are unconstitutional and infringe the president’s authority as the executive.
However, a 1935 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, upheld restrictions on the president’s authority to remove officers of certain types of independent agencies—in that case, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.
Next Steps
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling supports the president’s ability to remove the governing members of independent agencies without cause, allowing President Trump to move forward with efforts to reshape the NLRB and other agencies. However, the stays are not a final decision, and the litigation remains ongoing. Given the significant constitutional issues, the case could ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Beltway Buzz, March 28, 2025
The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.
FMCS Cuts Staff Dramatically. Following through on President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which we recently examined here at the Buzz, this week, the administration all but shut down the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). FMCS is an independent agency established by the U.S. Congress in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 “to prevent or minimize interruptions of the free flow of commerce growing out of labor disputes, to assist parties to labor disputes in industries affecting commerce to settle such disputes through conciliation and mediation.” FMCS will reportedly retain approximately 15 employees—down from the 220 employees it maintained in 2024.
Personnel News. There were significant developments this week on the agency personnel front as President Trump seeks to install his political appointees at executive branch agencies. For example:
NLRB. Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, ruled that President Trump was permitted to remove Gwynne Wilcox, a President Biden–appointed member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), whose five-year term expires on August 27, 2028. A lower-court judge had issued a decision preventing the president from removing Wilcox without cause, but today’s appellate court ruling lifts the injunction while the litigation proceeds. The case will likely reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
EEOC. President Trump nominated Andrea Lucas, currently the acting chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), to another five-year term on the Commission. Lucas has served as a commissioner since 2020, and her current term will expire on July 1, 2025. The Commission currently consists of Lucas and Democratic Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, with three vacancies.
OFCCP Director. President Trump appointed management-side attorney Catherine Eschbach to serve as the director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The position does not need Senate confirmation, so Eschbach will immediately replace Acting Director Michael Schloss. With the revocation of Executive Order (EO) 11246, OFCCP now only enforces affirmative action and discrimination laws related to veterans and workers with disabilities. According to some media reports, Eschbach will lead the effort at OFCCP to review already-submitted affirmative action plans for potential discrimination. Lauren B. Hicks and T. Scott Kelly have the details.
Workplace Safety Commissions. President Trump nominated Jonathan Snare to serve on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Snare was recently appointed deputy solicitor of labor and served in various positions within the DOL from 2003 to 2009. Additionally, the president nominated Marco Rajkovich Jr. to serve on the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC). Rajkovich chaired the FMSHRC during President Trump’s first term.
DOL Office of Disability Employment Policy. Julie Hocker has been nominated to serve as assistant secretary for disability employment policy at the DOL. Hocker previously served as commissioner of the Administration on Disabilities within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Republican Committee Chair Outlines Suggested Policy Priorities for New Secretary of Labor. Late last week, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Representative Tim Walberg (MI), sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer, outlining policy issues that the committee believes are ripe for action by the new secretary. The letter specifically recommends the withdrawal or rescission of several regulatory actions issued by the Biden administration, such as:
The Wage and Hour Division’s (WHD) final rules on overtime, independent contractors, tipped workers, and Davis-Bacon regulation, among others. Also singled out is the WHD’s proposed rule eliminating the subminimum wage for workers with disabilities (Rep. Walberg underscored the importance of withdrawal of this proposal in a separate letter sent this week).
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) final walkaround regulation and electronic injury and illness recordkeeping rule, as well as proposed rules relating to excessive heat in the workplace and emergency response.
Representative Walberg also encouraged “DOL to enforce its laws while providing robust compliance assistance to workers and businesses instead of continuing the enforcement-only approach taken by the Biden-Harris administration.” The administration’s first regulatory agenda will provide a roadmap of agency priorities when it is issued in June or July this summer.
House Committee Examines Opportunities to Amend FLSA. On March 25, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing entitled, “The Future of Wage Laws: Assessing the FLSA’s Effectiveness, Challenges, and Opportunities.” The hearing focused on ambiguous and outdated provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and how they could be updated for the modern economy and workforce. For example, legislators and witnesses discussed legislative options to simplify the calculation of an employee’s “regular rate” for purposes of calculating overtime pay as well as a familiar bill that would allow employees to choose paid time off or “comp time” instead of cash wages as compensation for working overtime hours. Witnesses also advocated for passage of both the Modern Worker Empowerment Act and Modern Worker Security Act, as well as the readoption of the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, a pilot program the DOL launched during the first Trump administration that allowed employers to self-report federal minimum wage and overtime violations, but terminated in January 2021, soon after former President Joe Biden came into office.
CHNV Parole Programs Terminated. On March 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice terminating the parole programs for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (“CHNV parole programs”), “unless the Secretary [of Homeland Security] makes an individual determination to the contrary.” Individuals whose parole is terminated must leave the United States by April 24, 2025. According to the notice, the DHS estimates that 532,000 people have entered the country through these parole programs. Among other reasons for terminating the parole programs, the DHS concluded that they “exacerbated challenges associated with interior enforcement of the immigration laws.” Individuals from these countries who have Temporary Protected Status, as well as individuals residing in the United States pursuant to parole programs relating to Ukraine and Afghanistan, are not impacted by the notice. Evan B. Gordon, Daniel J. Ruemenapp, and Hera S. Arsen have the details.
One Person, One Vote. On March 26, 1962, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its pivotal decision in Baker v. Carr, which changed the process by which our political representatives are chosen. The issue concerned the drawing of legislative districts in Tennessee. At the time of the initial legal challenge, the population of urban districts had dramatically increased compared to rural districts. Plaintiff Charles Baker argued that by not redrawing or reapportioning the districts, Tennessee violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because citizens in rural districts were overrepresented compared to those in the more populated urban districts. The case was initially dismissed as a “political question,” but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that apportionment of state legislatures is a justiciable matter. The decision in Baker v. Carr opened the door for a series of legislative malapportionment cases decided by the Supreme Court in the 1960s and formed the basis for the “one person, one vote” principle. But not everything about the case turned out great. The deliberations among the Supreme Court justices were so intense and exhausting that Justice Charles Evans Whittaker suffered a nervous breakdown and had to recuse himself from the case.
NLRB Firing Decision Stayed; Board to Stay Without a Quorum
On March 28, 2025, the United States District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed the District Court’s order reinstating former National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) Member Gwynne A. Wilcox. The Board is again left without a quorum, which, under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”), requires at least three members. See New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010).
As reported here, on March 6, 2025, a D.C. federal judge had reinstated Member Wilcox, finding that President Trump’s unprecedented firing violated Section 3(a) of the NLRA, which states that, “[a]ny member of the Board may be removed by the President, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.” 29 U.S.C. 153(a).
The D.C. Circuit did not include a majority opinion with its order, which simply indicated that “the emergency motions for stay be granted.” Instead, the Court attached two concurring opinions (by Judge Justin Walker and Judge Karen Henderson, respectively) and one dissenting opinion (by Judge Patricia Millett).
The opinions focused on the constitutionality of Section 3(a)’s removal protections, grappling with Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021), and Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), to determine whether the NLRB exercises sufficient “executive power,” such that it might not be covered by the Humphrey’s Executor exception to presidential removal. As referenced here, that decision affirmed Congress’ power to limit the president’s ability to remove officers of independent administrative agencies created by legislation.
As Judge Henderson indicated in her concurrence, the “continuing vitality” of Humphrey’s Executor might be in doubt after Seila and Collins, and the Trump administration will likely seek to overturn the decision through the Wilcox appeal. In the interim, and possibly until the Supreme Court rules on this issue, the Board will remain without a quorum. As reported here, while the NLRB indicated that it will function to the extent possible absent a quorum, employers can expect Board processes to move slowly and resolution of matters pending to be delayed.
We will continue to track the Wilcox litigation and its impact upon the NLRB.
D.C. Federal Court Judge Blocks Efforts to Dismantle the CFPB
On Friday, Judge Amy Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction sought by the National Treasury Employees Union, over efforts by Acting Director Russell Vought to shutter the agency. The union, which represents the Bureau’s employees, had sought an injunction that would have stopped Vought from eliminating jobs and contracts at the agency, and protect key CFPB functions from being shut down while the litigation was in progress.
In her opinion, Judge Jackson stated that the union had made a convincing case for emergency relief. She noted that the “defendants were fully engaged in a hurried effort to dismantle and disable the agency entirely – firing all probationary and term-limited employees without cause, cutting off funding, terminating contracts, closing all of the offices, and implementing a reduction in force that would cover everyone else.” She stated that “[t]hese actions were taken in complete disregard for the decision Congress made 15 years ago, which was spurred by the devastating financial crisis of 2008 and embodied in the United States Code, that the agency must exist and that it must perform specific functions to protect the borrowing public.” She concluded that if the defendants were not enjoined, “they will eliminate the agency before the Court has the opportunity to decide whether the law permits them to do it, and as the defendants’ own witness warned, the harm will be irreparable.”
The preliminary injunction bars Vought from deleting agency records, firing employees without cause or seeking to “achieve the outcome of a work stoppage.”
Putting It Into Practice: The decision is a major win for CFPB employees and their union. Many employees fired by the Acting Director were put back on the CFPB’s payroll earlier this month, under a temporary restraining order issued in a separate Maryland court case brought by the City of Baltimore (see our discussion here). Judge Jackson’s preliminary injunction seems to require the rehiring of the remainder. We will continue to monitor this case for new developments.
Listen to this post
HHS Job Cuts: FDA, CDC, NIH and CMS Impacted Amidst Significant Restructurings
On March 27, 2025, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a “dramatic restructuring” that will result in a reduction in agency workforce combined with significant internal restructuring.1 The department plans to cut approximately 20,000 positions, bringing its headcount in line with HHS’s pre-2002 level of around 62,000 employees. The anticipated restructuring involves consolidating 28 divisions into 15, citing prior budget and staffing increases of 38 percent and 17 percent, respectively.2
In connection with this restructuring, the Administration announced the following changes:
Creation of the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), which will consolidate the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH);
Transfer of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC);
Creation of a new Assistant Secretary for Enforcement to oversee the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) and Office for Civil Rights (OCR);
Merging the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to create a new Office of Strategy to provide research enhancing HHS’s various initiatives;
Reorganizing the Administration for Community Living (ACL) programs that support older adults and people of all ages with disabilities into other parts of HHS; and
10 HHS Regional Offices will be consolidated into 5.3
These cuts and restructurings follow the February 11, 2025, Executive Order which placed much of the federal government’s human resource management under the purview of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)4 and the February 12, 2025 termination of “Fork in the Road,” a deferred resignation program for government employees.5 This latest announcement adds to the growing number of federal staff reductions—62,000 jobs were cut across 17 different agencies in February alone.6 With HHS’s designation of a new Assistant Secretary of Enforcement to combat purported fraud, waste and abuse across its divisions, more job cuts could be on the horizon.
As a result of this latest announcement, the anticipated amount of job cuts and resulting reduced employee pools are as follows: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will cut 3,500 employees (about 20 percent of its workforce); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will cut 2,400 employees; the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will cut 300 employees; and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will cut 1,200 employees. These cuts, along with another 2,600 employees slated for dismissal, amount to a total of 10,000 HHS jobs cut. These cuts, combined with another 10,000 employees who have left the agency due to buyouts or other voluntary resignations, add up to the 20,000 total employee reduction.7
Potential Impacts
The sweeping job cuts, department re-organization and consolidation are in line with Secretary Kennedy’s vision of “doing more with less” resources, while a former HHS employee anonymously expressed concerns that “the cuts will weigh heavily on caseworkers and account management teams,” ultimately leading to a declination in “[s]ervice standards for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries,” due to both “a reduction in the people that handle their cases” and “diminished oversight of the Medicare Advantage plans.”8
Healthcare providers and other organizations that rely on regular interaction with HHS and its subagencies should be on the lookout for disruptions or delays in service as HHS implements these cuts and departmental reorganizations. For example, several senior FDA drug reviewers have already announced their resignations, and more are expected, raising the distinct possibility that the FDA’s ability to perform its public health functions will be impaired.9 The full impact of the March 27th announcements will not be known for some time, but potentially impacted stakeholders should keep a watchful eye over the coming months as HHS implements the announced changes.
[1] U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., HHS Announces Transformation to Make America Healthy Again (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/hhs-restructuring-doge.html.
[2] U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., Fact Sheet: HHS’ Transformation to Make America Healthy Again (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/hhs-restructuring-doge-fact-sheet.html.
[3] Id.
[4] Exec. Order No. 14,210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (Feb. 14, 2025); see also Exec. Off. of the President, Implementing The President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative/.
[5] U.S. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., Fork in the Road: Program Closed, https://www.opm.gov/fork/ (last visited Mar. 27, 2025).
[6] Janet Nguyen, Federal workers’ salaries represent less than 5% of federal spending and 1% of GDP, Marketplace (Mar. 6, 2025), https://www.marketplace.org/2025/03/06/federal-workers-salaries-represent-less-than-5-of-federal-spending-and-1-of-gdp/.
[7] Phil Taylor, HHS plans 10,000 more job cuts, taking target to 20,000, pharmaphorum (Mar. 27, 2025), https://pharmaphorum.com/news/hhs-plans-10000-more-job-cuts-taking-target-20000.
[8] Meg Tirrell et al., HHS cuts 10,000 employees in major overhaul of health agencies, CNN (Mar. 27, 2025, 6:46 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/27/health/hhs-rfk-job-cuts/index.html.
[9] See @steveusdin1, X (Mar. 27, 2025, 4:54 PM), https://x.com/steveusdin1/status/1905377827836624915.
What’s Changing to H-1B Cap Gap for F-1 Students?
Takeaways
The new DHS rule extends the H-1B Cap Gap period from 10.1 to 04.1.
F-1 students with pending or approved H-1B petitions benefit from this extension.
Employers must adjust their processes to comply with the new rule.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has published a final rule (89 FR 10354) that significantly changes the H-1B Cap Gap period. This rule automatically extends the duration of status and any employment authorization granted under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(3)(i)(B) or (C) for F-1 students who are beneficiaries of H-1B Change of Status petitions.
The key change is that the automatic extension end date has been moved from Oct. 1 to April 1 of the fiscal year for which H-1B status is being requested or until the validity start date of the approved petition, whichever is earlier. This adjustment aims to provide a smoother transition for F-1 students moving to H-1B status.
This change is particularly beneficial for F-1 students, who often face a gap in their employment authorization between the end of their academic program and the start of their H-1B employment. Extending the Cap Gap period to April 1 allows students to maintain their status and continue working without interruption.
This new rule aligns with the broader efforts to modernize and improve the efficiency of the H-1B program, as outlined in the DHS’s final rule published on Dec. 18, 2024.
Employers should take note of these changes and adjust their processes accordingly. It is crucial to ensure that all relevant documentation reflects the new Cap Gap period and that any necessary updates are made to employment verification systems.
For more detailed information, refer to the DHS’s final rule and the USCIS news release. These resources provide comprehensive guidance on the new regulations and their implications for both employers and F-1 students.
Illinois Federal Judge Blocks DOL From Enforcing Termination, Certification Provisions in Trump DEI-Related EOs
On March 27, 2025, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing portions of two provisions in President Donald Trump’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related executive orders (EO).
Quick Hits
A federal judge in Illinois issued a temporary restraining order blocking the DOL from enforcing certain provisions in two executive orders aimed at eliminating “illegal” DEI programs.
The judge found certain provisions are coercive and undefined, likely violating the First Amendment.
The ruling comes amid multiple ongoing legal challenges related to DEI initiatives.
U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the DOL from enforcing a “termination provision” that requires federal agencies to terminate grants or contracts with organizations that promote DEI and a “certification provision” that requires grant recipients to certify under the False Claims Act (FCA) that they do not have DEI or diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs.
The judge found that the termination and certification provisions in President Trump’s EO 14151 and EO 14173 are likely to violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit group that helps prepare women to earn jobs in the trades.
Judge Kennelly said that the termination provision was “coercive” and could suppress disfavored speech because its vagueness created a chilling effect on CWIT’s activities.
“Here, the government is not selectively funding some programs, but not others; it is indicating an entire area of programming that is disfavored as ‘immoral’ (as well as illegal) and threatening the termination of funding unless grantees bring their conduct into line with the government’s policy agenda,” Judge Kennelly wrote in the decision.
The judge further found the certification provision, which requires grant recipients to certify they do not operate any DEI programs that “violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws,” is problematic because the EO does not clearly define what constitutes “illegal” DEI activities and because its references to “programs promoting DEI” targets constitutionally protected speech there is a likely a First Amendment violation.
Notably, the court limited its ruling on the termination provision only to the plaintiff, CWIT, rather than issuing a nationwide injunction. However, the certification provision does apply nationwide but only to those being issued by the DOL and not all federal agencies.
The ruling comes just less than two weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in a similar lawsuit, granted the government’s request to stay a nationwide preliminary injunction that had blocked the termination and certification provisions and a provision directing the attorney general to enforce civil rights laws against DEI programs in the private sector.
Following the Fourth Circuit’s stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction, CWIT sought an immediate TRO in its lawsuit. The group argued the stay created renewed urgency to stop the DOL from cutting its federal funding unless it “cease[s] all diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility activities” and “scrub[s] all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and related language from its programming.”
In addition to the CWIT case and the Maryland case, which is led by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, civil rights groups led by the National Urban League have filed another legal challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The groups are also seeking to block several provisions of EO 14151 and EO 14173, in addition to EO 14168, which defines sex as binary for purposes of federal policy. The D.C. court held a hearing on the group’s motion for preliminary injunction on March 19, 2025.
Next Steps
The TRO in the CWIT case is limited to the DOL, but its reasoning suggests that the judge may issue a broader preliminary injunction. The DEI-related EOs have created uncertainty for employers over what types of programs the government will consider to be “illegal” DEI programs and sparked several legal challenges. Inconsistent rulings in the federal courts have added to the uncertainty, and the possibility remains that the cases or issue of whether the DEI-related EOs are constitutional could ultimately land before the Supreme Court of the United States. The outcome of the cases will have far-reaching implications for employers and the promotion of programs meant to foster diversity in the workforce.
Virginia’s Governor Vetos AI Bill
On March 24, 2025, Virginia’s Governor vetoed House Bill (HB) 2094, known as the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act. This bill aimed to establish a regulatory framework for businesses developing or using “high-risk” AI systems.
The Governor’s veto message emphasized concerns that HB 2094’s stringent requirements would stifle innovation and economic growth, particularly for startups and small businesses. The bill would have imposed nearly $30 million in compliance costs on AI developers, a burden that could deter new businesses from investing in Virginia. The Governor argued that the bill’s rigid framework failed to account for the rapidly evolving nature of the AI industry and placed an onerous burden on smaller firms lacking large legal compliance departments.
The veto of HB 2094 in Virginia reflects a broader debate in AI legislation across the United States. As AI technology continues to advance, both federal and state governments are grappling with how to regulate its use effectively.
At the federal level, AI legislation has been marked by contrasting approaches between administrations. Former President Biden’s Executive Orders focused on ethical AI use and risk management, but many of these efforts were revoked by President Trump this year. Trump’s new Executive Order, titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” aims to foster AI innovation by reducing regulatory constraints.
State governments are increasingly taking the lead in AI regulation. States like Colorado, Illinois, and California have introduced comprehensive AI governance laws. The Colorado AI Act of 2024, for example, uses a risk-based approach to regulate high-risk AI systems, emphasizing transparency and risk mitigation. While changes to the Colorado law are expected before its 2026 effective date, it may emerge as a prototype for others states to follow.
Takeaways for Business Owners
Stay Informed: Keep abreast of both federal and state-level AI legislation. Understanding the regulatory landscape will help businesses anticipate and adapt to new requirements.
Proactive Compliance: Develop robust AI governance frameworks to ensure compliance with existing and future regulations. This includes conducting risk assessments, implementing transparency measures, and maintaining proper documentation.
Innovate Responsibly: While fostering innovation is crucial, businesses must also prioritize ethical AI practices. This includes preventing algorithmic discrimination and ensuring the responsible use of AI in decision-making processes.