Top Five Labor Law Developments for July 2026

1. James Macy was sworn in as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, giving Republicans a three-member majority following the Senate’s confirmation of Macy and David Prouty. Macy joins Chairman James Murphy and Member Scott Mayer in a 3-1 Republican majority, while Prouty will continue as the Board’s sole Democrat for a new term beginning August 28. Although Republicans already held a majority, consistent with long-standing Board practice, Murphy and Mayer had been reluctant to overturn established precedent without a third Republican vote. The new composition creates a path to revisit decisions involving workplace rules, severance agreements, bargaining obligations, protected concerted activity, and remedies as appropriate cases arise. Employers should monitor pending cases for early indications of how the new majority may reshape federal labor law.
    
2. A Texas federal district court held that statutory removal protections for Board members and administrative law judges are unconstitutional but allowed the proceedings to continue after severing those protections. Following a 2025 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision and the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332 (June 29, 2026), the court concluded that the National Labor Relations Act’s removal restrictions violate the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution. The court nevertheless denied the employer’s request to permanently enjoin the unfair labor practice proceedings, concluding that the removal protections were severable and that severance cured the constitutional defects. The court therefore allowed the challenged Board proceedings to continue. The decision contrasts with another Texas federal district court ruling that enjoined Board proceedings because the removal protections are inseverable. The two decisions show disagreement over the appropriate remedy for the agency’s unconstitutional removal structure.
    
3. A New York district court permanently blocked New York’s “trigger law,” which sought to expand state authority over private sector labor disputes. S.8034A authorized New York’s Public Employment Relations Board to oversee private sector union elections and unfair labor practice proceedings (matters that generally fall within the Board’s jurisdiction) when the Board fails to successfully assert jurisdiction, including when it lacks the quorum required to issue decisions. The court held that the law was preempted by the Act under San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), and permanently enjoined its enforcement against any person or entity. The ruling prompted the Board and New York to agree to dismiss without prejudice a parallel lawsuit challenging the law on preemption grounds. The decision reinforces the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction over most private sector labor disputes and limits state efforts to assume authority in this area.
    
4. The Ninth Circuit signaled reluctance to overturn an injunction blocking California’s “captive audience” meeting law during oral arguments. SB 399 prohibits employers from taking or threatening adverse action against employees who decline to attend meetings or receive communications concerning political or religious matters, including unionization. A California district court previously enjoined the law, finding that it likely violates the First Amendment and is preempted by the Act. During oral argument, the panel raised concerns that the law could impermissibly restrict employer speech, while also questioning whether the challengers had established standing to bring their pre-enforcement claims. The injunction remains in place while the Ninth Circuit considers the appeal.
    
5. The Board granted review and invited briefs on how to determine appropriate bargaining units that include employees at both acute care hospitals and non-acute care facilities. Essentia Health, 374 NLRB No. 140 (July 15, 2026). The case involves a proposed unit of advanced practice providers working across nine hospitals and roughly 51 clinics. The Health Care Rule generally limits bargaining units at acute care hospitals to eight specified units, including a unit of all professional employees, absent extraordinary circumstances. The regional director found the Health Care Rule inapplicable and approved the unit under the Board’s general community of interests rule applicable to unit composition. The Board asked whether the Health Care Rule governs the composition of these hybrid units and, if not, what standard should apply. The eventual Board decision could affect how bargaining units are structured across healthcare systems that operate both hospitals and outpatient facilities.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with questions about these and other workplace developments.