Top Five Labor Law Developments of 2025

1. The National Labor Relations Board lacked the three-member quorum required to issue decisions for the majority of 2025. Board vacancies, delayed confirmations, and ongoing litigation over Board composition limited the agency’s ability to resolve cases and issue precedential guidance. As a result, many pending unfair labor practice (ULP) and representation cases stalled or proceeded without clear direction from the Board. Employers were left navigating labor relations issues in an environment with fewer definitive rulings and greater reliance on regional office discretion. The quorum issue remained a consistent theme throughout the year. However, on Jan. 7, 2026, James Murphy and Scott Mayer were sworn in as new Board members. The Board has a quorum to resume issuing decisions and address its growing case backlog (two seats remain empty on the five-seat Board).  
    
2. Significant changes at the Board did not occur to the extent anticipated following the transition to a new presidential administration. Employers anticipated a quick shift in Board composition and immediate decisions returning to more employer-friendly standards, such as those relating to work rules and handbook policies and when employers must recognize a union without an election. However, although interim General Counsel (GC) William Cowen did quickly rescind many Biden-era GC memoranda, including those related to protected concerted activities, settlement agreements, and employment agreement provisions such as “stay-or-pay” provisions, anticipated changes to Board precedent did not occur during 2025, largely due to delayed Board member confirmations. (Significant decisions overturning precedent still may not occur for some time until the Board has three Republican members. Generally, reversals of precedent happen if three members from the president’s party are on the Board.) Instead, the Board experienced a slower progression in enforcement priorities than a dramatic policy shift.
    
3. The unprecedented removal of former Board Member Gwynne Wilcox and resulting litigation further affected the Board’s ability to address the growing backlog of cases. The litigation over the removal hinges on whether President Donald Trump can remove a Board member without cause. Applicability of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which restricted a president’s removal power for independent agencies, is expected to be pivotal. Federal courts issued a series of rulings to address the case’s applicability, resulting in decisions initially ordering Wilcox’s reinstatement, granting stays, and advancing the matter to further appellate review. The litigation, which is still pending, directly affected the Board’s composition and contributed to its inability to maintain a quorum. Resolution will likely require the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide the constitutionality of Wilcox’s removal. 
    
4. Prior to the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of management-side attorney Crystal Carey to the Board’s GC position, interim GC Cowen rescinded many enforcement priorities established under the Biden Administration. Cowen’s guidance throughout the year emphasized increased procedural efficiency, reconsideration of certain remedies, and changes to case-handling instructions for regional offices. These GC memos signaled a focus on enforcement strategy, particularly in how ULP cases are investigated and resolved. For instance, the shifts are reflected in settlement discussions and litigation strategy, including a greater emphasis on early resolution and Regions taking more measured approaches to remedial demands.
    
5. Federal appellate courts questioned the constitutionality of the Board’s structure and authority through employer-initiated litigation challenging the Board’s administrative enforcement process. The lawsuits sought to prevent the Board from proceeding with underlying administrative proceedings while constitutional claims were litigated in federal court, rather than through the Board’s adjudicatory process. The litigation raised separation-of-powers concerns under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, with employers arguing that multiple layers of removal protections for Board administrative law judges (ALJs) improperly limit the president’s executive control over agency enforcement. In these cases, employers brought challenges directly in federal court, contesting both the authority of ALJs to preside over enforcement actions and the constitutionality of the Board’s adjudicatory structure.
    

Much is expected of the Board in 2026, and we will update employers on significant changes to federal labor law. Please contact an attorney at Jackson Lewis if you have any questions about these developments.