Labor Misconduct Complaint Response: SpaceX Claims Fed Agency Unconstitutional

I would call it a concern rather than a problem. It'll be interesting, and likely frustrating, to see what what the Supreme Court does but it is worth noting some potential upsides - for both parties to a case- of this system.

The reasoning for the internal administrative courts is because these (SEC, NLRA, etc.) are highly esoteric and detailed areas of the law. Having people be judges in these cases who are experts can be a positive so they don't get BS'ed and can resolve issues efficiently and effectively and consistently. That is very different from the experience of dealing with federal courts at large where a judge may be hearing a murder trial one day and a shareholder lawsuit the next. Those courts ALREADY have huge backlogs so adding this case load to them is likely to be disastrous as well as resulting in more manifestly unfair outcomes when one side is able to delay to the point where remedies aren't meaningful. The argument that they are political (your overturning) also applies pretty damn well to EVERY court these days, not just internal administrative ones.

I think a useful analogy is to how frustrated much of HN gets every time federal judges struggle to grok technology - whether it be the internet, software code, or privacy. Imagine if there was some sort of court dedicated to dealing with 'technology stuff' where the judges had a background in the relevant areas to make sure reality won the day. There is a place for generalists and a place for specialists. Maybe this isn't the best way to handle it but it is a way.

I'd rather have these things handled by more democratic, if partisan, groups than an unelected, unaccountable, supreme court. If anything needs to go it's that court's makeup and structure. What an insult to democracy.

There is nothing magical or sacred about the Supreme Court, especially these days. They're just political puppets.

Not to mention that the current president took the unprecedented step of replacing the entire NLRB instead of just replacing members whose terms expired.

That's a good way to get short term wins, but also guarantee more rancor and and even bigger push back later.

While the constitution gives congress the authority to establish courts, these courts are all supposed to be in the judiciary. It boggles the mind that it would be contitutional for congress to delegate another branch's authority (the judicial branch's) to the executive branch.

NLRB decisions in unfair labor practice cases can be appealed to a US Court of Appeals?

Perhaps so, but... that sure makes it look like they have no reasonable answer to the allegations against them.

THEY ARE NOT immune from democratic control. That's a common falsehood promoted by the extreme right. Congress has the power to reign them in any time they choose. Congress simply prefers to whimp out and lie to their constituents that "there's nothing they can do" and transfer blame to someone else.

We've had "independent federal agencies" since before we had the constitution. Our entire economy, specifically the federal reserve, is based on independent agencies.

The case in question isn't about whether independent agencies can exist or not. The claim is that the way the panel is appointed is not constitutional. If they win the case then it would simply require the board to be appointed in a more specific way.

> SpaceX in its lawsuit claims that, because federal law only allows board members and administrative judges to be removed for cause, and not at will, the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks to block the NLRB case from moving forward.

There's also a second claim that they should be allowed a jury trial.

> In its lawsuit, however, SpaceX claims that the NLRB proceedings violate the company’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.”

The constitutionality of the agency itself isn't what's being discussed.

Yeah, that's not true at all. The NLRB, like all agencies, was created by act of congress and given a remit to regulate areas of civic life within a specific range of factors. A complainant can try to argue that a specific regulation is outside their remit or otherwise in contravention to other Constitutional protections, but they can't just say the agency has no right to make rules. There's a gigantic stack of precedent that Congress or the courts can rein in specific rules, but so long as they within the bounds set in their charter, they are absolutely allowed to make new rules with the force of law (ie can the EPA regulate carbon emissions as "pollution"). It's just standard bureaucracy since it would be utterly impossible to put every single minute regulation up for Congressional debate. Especially when they require niche technical expertise to even understand.

Not really. Companies are owned by people, and if a federal agency can fine a company $10mm, they are taking that property from one or more people. It's still a direct financial taking from owners.

Vs. “this faceless unelected bureaucrat can shut down my business because of reason him and his unelected coworkers literally just made up without any legislation”. I’m going with the one that protects private sector over government.

We also get things like companies being able to refuse to give your data to the police without a warrant (unreasonable search and seizure protection for people).

> People don't always get trials by jury either (petty traffic cases being perhaps the most common example)

And this is also a gross miscarriage of justice, and basically is uncontrolled rampant taxation.

And somehow, its done as a contortion that the BMV "allows" you to drive, so you're bound by their ALJs, who are actual judges but with laughable standards. And the BMV can revoke driving rights for any/no reason.

Its cause the system would drown if citations actually required a real court and jury and such. So the state just jedi-hand-waves and says no.

Hopefully, SCOTUS decision will also remove this BMV speeding ticket bullshit in kangaroo court.

Only because the supreme Court ruled corporations are legal people. Without that absurdity, this would be absurd

SpaceX should have their federal contracts pulled (>$1B) to put his power trip in check. Certainly, challenge the system if you feel wronged, but don't be surprised when the system pushes back.

The executive branch has made their position on labor rights known [1] [2], take government dollars away from bad faith actors if they must.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

That seems pretty inconsistent with his belief in free speech absolutism. Not to mention, that employees are not stating "boohoo I hate my boss" they are saying (very appropriately) that he is harming the company by causing disrepute.