WILCOX IS BACK: A Legal Drama with More Twists Than Daytime TV

First, she’s out. Then, she’s back in. Then out again. Then reinstated. This isn’t just a legal battle—it’s giving daytime drama.

---

TL;DR: Gwynne Wilcox is back on the NLRB after a D.C. Circuit ruling found her removal likely unlawful. The decision relies on a 1935 Supreme Court precedent that limits the President’s power to fire officials from independent boards without cause. Her reinstatement gives the Board a stronger pro-employee majority, which could influence decisions on union elections, workplace rules, and how broadly labor protections are interpreted. But for how long?

---

Gwynne Wilcox, a Senate-confirmed member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was removed by President Trump. She sued. She won. She was reinstated. Then, a panel of appellate judges paused her return. Now, the full D.C. Circuit has reinstated her once more.

The result? Wilcox is back on the Board, and the legal rule that got her there has been around since 1935.

The Comeback: D.C. Circuit Rewinds the Tape

On April 7, a full panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wilcox’s removal likely broke the law. That decision reversed an earlier stay and allowed a prior court order to take effect—requiring federal officials to treat Wilcox as if she had never been removed from her position.

This isn’t just symbolic. The court’s ruling is legally binding. Wilcox now regains her authority, her office, and her vote on the Board.

The Precedent Still Holding the Stage

The court based its ruling on two long-standing Supreme Court decisions: Humphrey’s Executor (1935) and Wiener (1958). Those cases say that members of certain independent government boards—like the NLRB—can’t be removed by the President without cause.

Even though more recent cases, like Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen, have narrowed some removal protections, the Supreme Court has never overruled the older precedents. So the D.C. Circuit concluded it was bound to follow them.

What This Means for Employers

Because who sits on the NLRB matters. The Board interprets and enforces federal labor law. Wilcox’s vote affects outcomes on union elections, unfair labor practices, and how broadly protections are applied.

For now, she’s back—and that strengthens the current pro-employee majority on the Board.

The Dissenting View: Overreach or Necessity?

Not all judges agreed with the outcome. Several dissented, arguing:

• The decision unduly limits the President’s constitutional authority.
• The injunction was overly aggressive by treating Wilcox as if she had never left.
• This ruling risks conflict between the judiciary and the executive branch.

One dissenting judge described the result as a “judicially imposed fiction.”

Final Scene (for Now)

• An old Supreme Court rule still protects some federal officials from being removed without cause.
• This case appears destined for Supreme Court review.
• For now (but for how long?) Wilcox’s return could reshape how the NLRB rules on key workplace issues.

Stay tuned. This legal drama still has episodes left to air.