A Texas federal judge just drew a sharp line employers and talent leaders need to hear: the NLRB’s removal protections can be unconstitutional and the agency’s case against you can still move forward.
In Aimbridge Employee Service Corp. v. NLRB (E.D. Tex., July 27, 2026), Judge Amos Mazzant held that for-cause removal protections for NLRB board members and administrative law judges violate Article II, following the Fifth Circuit’s SpaceX v. NLRB path and the Supreme Court’s recent expansion of presidential removal power in Slaughter v. Trump (also styled Trump v. Slaughter in some writeups). He still refused to enjoin the unfair labor practice prosecution against Aimbridge, a hospitality employment management firm, because those protections are severable from the rest of the National Labor Relations Act structure.
What the court actually did
Board members: Removable by the president (for-cause shield struck).
ALJs: Removable at will by NLRB board members, without MSPB good-cause process as the controlling gate.
Severability: Citing Seila Law and Free Enterprise Fund, the court treated the unconstitutional removal rules as cuttable, so the agency’s broader machinery remains.
Injunction: Denied / mooted. Aimbridge’s ULP matter may proceed.
That is the opposite remedy from another Texas decision earlier in 2026. In Aunt Bertha v. NLRB, Judge Mark Pittman found removal protections unconstitutional and not severable, permanently enjoining administrative proceedings against that employer. Same state, different severability answer, different operational outcome.
Why TA and HR should care
Labor strategy and recruiting intersect when organizers, ULPs, and employer speech rules show up mid-hire cycle. The practical read of Aimbridge:
| Assumption | After Aimbridge |
|---|---|
