| New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued March 23, 2010 Decided June 17, 2010 |
||||||
| Full case name | New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board | |||||
| Docket nos. | 08-1457 | |||||
| Prior history | Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The NLRB does not have the authority to decide cases without the Congressionaly designated quorum | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito | |||||
| Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| Taft–Hartley Act | ||||||
New Process Steel v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010), was a case before the United States Supreme Court holding that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cannot make decisions without a quorum.
The NLRB was created by Executive Order on June 29, 1934 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to oversee labor related disputes for private companies and the United States Postal Service. In 1947 the Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act which Congressionally approved of the NLRB. It required that its members be confirmed by the Senate and also increased its size from three to five. The Act also raised the quorum needed from two to three. In December 2007 three of its five members terms were set to expire. President George W. Bush attempted to nominate new members but was blocked by Senate Democrats. Just before the NLRB lost its quorum the five member board delegated its powers to the two remaining members. In between December 2007 and March 2009 the two issued almost 600 rulings. They informally decided to hear only noncontroversial opinions until the board had quorum. In September 2007 the board brought against New Process Steel two unfair labor practices. New Process Steel sued arguing that the board's actions were illegal because it lacked the Congressionally delegated quorum. The First, Second and Seventh Court of Appeals ruled in the government’s favor, however the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against it. The Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to review the issue given the stakes and lack of agreement among the lower courts.
The question before the court was; Does the National Labor Relations Board have authority to decide cases with only two sitting members, where 29 U.S.C. § 153(b) provides that "three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board"?
The court ruled for the plaintiffs. The NLRB lacked the authority to issue rulings with only two members, regardless if a majority of the board had delegated its power. The court determined that as the statute was written Congress only allowed the NLRB to delegate power to three of the five members. If Congress had wanted to allow two members then it would have written it into the statute. It rejected the government’s argument for the sake of efficiency.